GIFT    OF 
JANE  Ko FATHER 


THE  LIFE 

OF 

JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN 

COMPLETE  IN  TWO  VOLUMES 
VOLUME  I 


JOHN  C.  CALHOUN  AS  A  YOUNG  MAN 
Frontispiece,  Vol.  I 


THE -LIFE 

OF  . 

JOHN  CALDWELL-CALHOUN 


BY 

WILLIAM  M.  MEIGS 

Author  of  "The  Life  of  Thomas  Hart  Benton," 
"The  Life  of  Charles  Jared  Ingersoll,"  "The 
Growth  of  the  Constitution,"  and  Other  Works 


COMPLETE  IN  TWO  VOLUMES 
VOLUME  I 


THE  NEALE  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

440  FOURTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 

1917 


Copyright,  1917,  by 
WILLIAM  M.  MEIGS 


K0 


It  had  pleased  Providence,  said  Mr.  Calhoun, 
to  cast  his  lot  in  the  slaveholding  States.  There 
were  his  hopes  and  all  that  was  near  and  dear  to 
him.  His  first  duty  was  to  them,  and  he  held 
every  other,  even  his  obligations  to  this  Govern- 
ment and  the  Union,  as  sacred  as  he  regarded 
them,  subordinate  to  their  safety.  He  knew  he 
would  be  assailed,  both  here  and  elsewhere,  for 
this  avowal ;  but  he  had  long  been  accustomed  to 
such  assaults.  They  had  no  terror  for  him. — 
"  Works,"  Vol.  III.  p.  178. 


371675 


CONTENTS 

VOLUME  I 

CHAPTER  I 
PRELIMINARY  PAGE 

The  Upper  Country  of  South  Carolina  —  Ancestry  of  John 
C.  Calhoun 27 

CHAPTER  II 
EARLY  YEARS 

Boyhood  —  Schooling  —  Youthful  Pursuits  and  Influences 
—  Conditions,  Social  and  Political,  in  South  Carolina  — 
Slavery  48 

CHAPTER  III 
EDUCATION 

^  The  Turning  Point  —  Waddel's  School  —  College  Life  at 
Vale  —  Impressions 62 

CHAPTER  IV 
FURTHER  TRAINING 

Studies  Law  —  The  Litchfield  Law  School  —  Growth  of 
Opinion 72 

CHAPTER  V 
LEGAL  CAREER 

Completes  Law  Studies  with  Chancellor  DeSaussure  — 
Great  Success  at  the  Bar  —  Love  and  Marriage  —  Corre- 
spondence —  Gives  up  the  Law  .  88 

CHAPTER  VI 
ENTRANCE  UPON  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS 

Legislature  —  Elected  to  House  of  Representatives  —  Per- 
sonal Glimpses .  •  .  .  •  •  •  102 


r 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VII 
WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  PAGE 

The   House   of   Representatives   in    1811  —  The   "War- 
Hawks  " —  Committee  on   Foreign   Relations  —  Declaration 
of  War  — ?  The  Restrictive  System  and  its  Final  Abandon-        4 
ment » 115 

CHAPTER  VIII 
ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS 

Second  Session  of  Twelfth  Congress  —  The  Thirteenth 
Congress  —  The  Loan  Bill  —  Bank  of  the  United  States  Pro- 
posed —  Death  of  Daughter  . 140 

CHAPTER  IX 
THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS 

Circumstances  of  the  Day  —  The  Tariff  of  1816  —  Second 
Bank  Established  —  The  Salary  Bill  —  Internal  Improve- 
ments—  Calhoun's  Early  Views  .  . 174 

CHAPTER  X 
IN  MONROE'S  CABINET 

Secretary  of  War — Internal  Improvements  —  Cabinet 
Discussions  —  Missouri  Compromise  —  Party  Politics  — 
Rip-Rap  Contract  Investigation  —  Political  Calumny  —  The 
Tariff  —  South  Carolina  Politics  —  Calhoun's  Home  .  .  .  225 

CHAPTER  XI 
ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN 

Political  Rivalry  —  The  Presidential  Election  of  1824-25 
—  The  Washington  Republican  —  Troubles  in  the  Republican 
Camp  —  Calhoun's  Loss  of  Pennsylvania  —  Withdraws  from 
Candidacy  —  Elected  Vice-President  —  John  Randolph  — 
"  Patrick  Henry  "  and  "  Onslow  " 287 

CHAPTER  XII 
THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY 

Calhoun's  Change  of  View  and  Causes  Leading  Thereto  — 
Champion  of  State  Rights  —  The  Missouri  Struggle  —  Early 
Abolition  Proposals  —  The  Tariff 318 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XIII 
ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  PAGE 

Further  Causes  Leading  to  Calhoun's  Change  —  Ran- 
dolph's Influence  —  A  Solid  South  —  Calhoun's  New  Politi- 
cal Faith  —  The  Woolens  Bill  —  Tariff  Act  of  1828  —  South- 
ern Outburst  —  South  Carolina's  Growing  Isolation  — 
Origin  of  Nullification  —  The  "  Exposition  " 348 

CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  WIDENING  BREACH 

Presidential  Campaign  of  1828-29  —  Jackson-Calhoun 
Ticket  Chosen  —  The  President's  Cabinet  —  Calhoun's 
Rivalry  with  Van  Buren  —  The  Eaton  Affair  —  Growing 
Tension  with  Jackson  —  Crawford  —  Jackson's  Quarrel  with 
Calhoun 386 

CHAPTER  XV 
THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION 

Defiance  Discussed  in  South  Carolina  —  Calhoun's  Hesi- 
tations and  Presidential  Hopes  —  McDuffie's  Speech  of  May 
19,  1831  — Calhoun  Declares  Himself  — The  Tariff  Act  of 
1832  —  Letter  to  Governor  Hamilton  —  The  ^Nullification 
Convention  —  The  Unionists  —  Elected  to  Senate  —  Death 
of  Presidential  Hopes 413 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

VOLUME  I 

John  C.  Calhoun  as  a  Young  Man Frontispiece 

PACE 
Fac-simile  Signature  of  Patrick  Calhoun  .      .      .     ......     .     33 

Stone  Erected  by  Patrick  Calhoun  to  the  Memory  of  His 
Mother .     .     >     .....     38 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


PAGB 


The  Litchfield  Law  Schools  .    y    V    .......     76 

Fort  Hill .     ;    ,     „     ..    t  2g2 

Fac-simile  of  Letter  of  John  C.  Calhoun  .     .     .  .432 


PREFACE 

The  following  "  Life  of  Calhoun  "  was  undertaken  a  number 
of  years  ago  and  has,  by  the  labor  it  has  entailed,  shown  most 
convincingly  to  the  writer  the  vast  field  that  Calhoun  covered. 
During  nearly  forty  years  of  our  earlier  existence,  there  were 
few  subjects  of  public  importance  on  which  he  did  not  take  a 
leading  part.  Many  of  these  concerned  the  system  of  slavery  and 
the  protection  of  the  then  civilization  of  our  South,  but  the  world 
of  his  countrymen  would  make  a  great  mistake  to  suppose,  as 
many  do,  that  his  work  was  confined  to  this  one  point.  In  his 
later  years  that  subject  was  of  controlling  importance  to  him, 
as  to  all  Americans ;  but  the  case  was  far  otherwise  during  much 
of  his  public  life. 

The  fact,  however,  that  he  was  the  leader  in  the  losing  strug- 
gle of  the  South  has  centred  public  attention  on  this  one  phase 
of  his  life's  work,  and  his  fame, —  so  great  in  his  day, —  has 
suffered  a  marked  eclipse.  Modern  man,  with  slavery  as  much 
gone  as  is  the  civilization  of  ancient  Egypt,  or  Assyria,  can  hardly 
conceive  how  vital  were  the  questions  presented  to  the  South  by 
the  growth  of  abolition  sentiment  and  the  evident  likelihood  that 
in  no  long  course  of  years  the  slaves  would  be  emancipated.  To 
the  Southerner  this  result  was  ever  a  nightmare,  promising  a 
terrible  upheaval,  the  loss  of  his  existing  civilization,  and  even  a 
reversion  to  some  state  of  half-barbarism.  These  predictions  of 
his  have  not  been  fully  realized,  but  we  must  remember  that  the 
generation  that  lived  during  Abolition  did  go  through  a  period 
not  so  different.  Most  of  us  probably  realize  to-day  that  the 
fundamental  difficulties  in  a  popular  government  of  the  existence 
side  by  side  of  the  two  races  are  still  unsolved  and  are  perhaps 
no  nearer  solution  than  they  were  fifty  years  ago.  Calhoun  said 
that  the  negroes,  instead  of  being  the  slaves  of  the  individual, 
would  become  the  slaves  of  the  community,  and  the  tendency  is, 
beyond  doubt,  away  from  actual  equality  and  toward  some  other  / 
form  of  absolute  control  by  the  white  race. 

All  this  adds  to  the  difficulty  of  writing  a  Life  of  Calhoun; 
and  perhaps  we  have  here  the  reason  why  the  task  has  not  before 

ii 


12  PREFACE 

been  attempted.  The  student  of  modern  times  studies  with  in- 
finite patience  the  inscriptions  on  bricks  buried  some  thousands 
of  years  ago,  and  the  cultivated  public  are  interested  in  the  re- 
sults; but  the  struggles  from  which  has  emerged  our  American 
civilization  of  to-day  appeal  to  but  few  of  our  people.  There 
is  no  adequate  Life  of  Calhoun.  Jenkins's  "Life"  (published 
soon  after  Calhoun  died,  and  which  is  perhaps  the  one  referred 
to  by  Cralle  in  his  Note  to  the  Oregon  Negotiation a  as  "  now 
being  prepared  for  the  press")  is  the  most  extensive,  and  there 
is  no  other  even  purporting  to  be  full.  There  are  several  short 
ones,  among  which  by  far  the  best  is  that  by  Mr.  Gaillard 
Hunt,  admirable  so  far  as  it  goes,  but  only  intended  to  be  a 
sketch. 

Von  Hoist's  "Life"  must  also  not  be  forgotten, —  a  work 
much  lauded  by  a  certain  class  of  our  historians,  whose  chief 
purpose  seems  to  be  to  write  down  everything  concerning  the 
South  and  resolutely  to  refuse  to  present  or  to  realize  the  milieu 
in  which  the  Southerner  lived  prior  to  1861.  Von  Hoist  almost 
says  in  his  early  pages  that  he  cannot  imagine  himself  walking 
and  talking  with  Calhoun  and,  when  he  comes  to  present  the  State 
Rights  view  held  by  the  subject  of  his  book,  he  shows  a  lack  of 
comprehension  of  fundamental  points  which  is  quite  inexcusable 
in  one  who  had  undertaken  to  write  the  Life.  He  had  either 
never  read  Calhoun's  arguments,  or  had  not  tried  to  understand 
them,  for  he  could  easily  have  done  so;  and  it  looks  as  if  he 
had  merely  gulped  down  the  partisan  answers  of  Webster  and 
others. 

To  assert,  as  Von  Hoist  does,2  that  Calhoun  held  that  our  Con- 
stitution was  an  agreement  made  between  the  States  on  the  one 
part  and  the  United  States  on  the  other  is  to  misstate  most  grossly 
what  the  State  Rights  School  maintained  as  to  the  nature  of  our 
Government.  Nor  was  it  necessary  to  wait  until  Calhoun's  day 
to  ascertain  what  that  school  did  maintain  on  this  point.  The 
very  history  of  the  origin  of  our  Government  showed  plainly 
that  the  several  States  were  the  only  parties  to  the  Constitution, 
and  that  the  United  States  was  the  resultant  or  derivative  or 
agent  for  certain  purposes  of  the  States,  much  as  a  partnership 
results  from  the  agreement  of  its  members  among  themselves* 
The  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798-99  stated  the  matter  most 

i  Calhoun's  "  Works,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  414-15. 
2 "Life,"  pp.  139-40. 


PREFACE  13 

plainly, — "  that  to  this  compact  each  State  acceded  as  a  State,  and 
is  an  integral  party,—  its  co-States  forming,  as  to  itself,  the  other 
party."  3 

The  origin  of  Von  Hoist's  error  is  apparently  Webster's  final 
speech  in  the  great  debate  with  Hayne.  The  latter  had  stated 
the  matter  accurately,  that  "  the  Federal  Constitution,  therefore, 
is  ...  a  compact  by  which  each  State,  acting  in  its  own  sov- 
ereign capacity,  has  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  other 
States,  by  which  they  have  consented  that  certain  designated 
powers  shall  be  exercised  by  the  United  States  " 4  but  a  little 
further  on  he  made  the  slip  of  saying  "  when  it  is  insisted  by  the 
gentleman  that  one  of  the  parties  [the  Federal  Government]  '  has 
the  power  of  deciding  ultimately,' "  etc.,  etc.  And  he  later  re- 
peats this  error,  which  his  opponent,  the  great  orator  and  skillful 
advocate,  fixed  upon  with  the  grip  of  death  and  held  up  to  crushing 
ridicule  in  the  last  short  speech,  which  closed  the  debate.  The 
blunder  is  far  more  ridiculous  in  Von  Hoist's  mouth,  and  has 
not  the  excuse  of  inadvertence  in  a  largely  extempore  discussion. 

The  State  Rights  theories,  whether  right  or  not,  were  guilty 
of  no  such  shortcomings  as  this.  They  were  scientifically  very 
accurate.  All  the  elements  fitted  together  and  made  a  perfect 
whole,  conclusion  following  from  premise  in  a  way  that  is  fasci- 
nating to  many  minds.  To  the  present  writer,  who  was  carried 
to  them  by  mental  conviction  in  impressionable  youth  after  the 
Civil  War,  they  still  seem  absolutely  unanswerable,  if  we  ap- 
proach the  subject  and  discuss  it  in  the  way  that  our  public  men 
did  down  to  1861-65.  In  my  opinion,  neither  Webster  nor  any 
one  else  ever  approached  an  answer  to  Calhoun, —  I  still  mean 
on  the  basis  on  which  they  discussed  the  problem.  The  facts  were 
plain,  and  the  conclusion  seemed  to  follow  as  day  follows  night. 

But  was  their  method  of  approach  the  true  one  ?  Are  vast  sub- 
jects, involving  the  welfare  of  millions  upon  millions,  living  and 
to  be  born,  to  be  decided  by  the  syllogism  and  the  methods  of  the 
forum?  Can  faulty  human  logic  be  allowed  to  conclude  ques- 
tions of  such  infinite  magnitude?  It  has  rarely  done  so  in  the 
long  run,  though  the  method  is  always  used  for  make- weight 
and  has  doubtless  controlled  in  some  cases,  but  man  has  in  vital 

3  Cited  in  Calhoun's  "  Discourse  on  the  Constitution,"  etc.,  in  "  Works," 
Vol.  I,  p.  355,  and  see  also  the  same  in  the  "  Massachusetts  Remonstrance," 
Annals   of   Congress,   Thirteenth   Congress,    1813-14,   Vol.   I,  pp.  350-351 
and  in  many  other  authoritative  statements  of  that  day  and  later. 

4  "  Congressional  Debates,"  Vol.  VI,  Part  I,  1829-30,  p.  86. 


I4  PREFACE 

matters  thrown  to  the  winds  so  frail  a  crutch  as  it  affords.  The 
"  perils  of  the  logical  short-cut "  in  complex  circumstances  have 
been  appreciated  by  some  public  men,  even  some  who  were 
logicians  in  a  high  degree.5 

Instances  might  be  cited  by  the  score  in  which  the  results  of 
theory  and  the  syllogism  have  not  been  and  could  not  be  adhered 
to  in  practical  affairs.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Italy 
itself  recognizes  Uniat  Priests  and  their  wives.  St.  Augustine 
balked  at  the  inevitable  logic  that  demonstrates  that  the  Deity  pre- 
destined for  millions  that  they  would  be  damned.  Calvin  was 
of  a  different  mettle  and  almost  revelled  in  this  result,  but  mod- 
ern days  have  seen  his  followers  eat  away  the  essence  of  this 
article  of  their  creed, —  yet  at  the  same  time  still  claim  to  be  Cal- 
vinists.  The  Catholics  and  the  Christian  Churches  in  general  no 
longer  follow  out  or  want  to  follow  out  what  is  certainly  the 
logical  result  of  their  beliefs,  that  they  must  destroy  or  at  least 
silence  such  men  as  Darwin,  Huxley,  Tyndall  and  others,  whose 
teachings  have  undoubtedly  undermined  the  faith  of  centuries. 
And  in  the  same  general  direction  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the 
most  successful  governments  have  been  the  most  highly  un- 
philosophical  in  history.  Few  laws  have  been  passed  in  England 
or  other  countries  governed  by  the  parliamentary  system,  which 
have  not  been  a  hodge-podge  of  compromise. 

In  the  arguments  which  have  been  advanced  in  history  and 
in  some  great  law  cases,  we  find  again  the  like  incompatibility 
between  the  conclusion  of  the  syllogism  and  the  result  neces- 
sarily carried  into  effect  in  practice.  The  Attorney-General  of 
England  argued  in  1624,  on  a  quo  warranto  upon  the  charter  of 
the  Virginia  Company,  that  the  power  conferred  to  carry  the 
king's  subjects  to  Virginia,  if  exercised  without  limitation,  might 
result  in  the  transfer  across  the  seas  of  the  whole  population,  and 
thus  leave  England  a  howling  wilderness:  whence  he  concluded 
that  the  power  was  too  great  to  be  bestowed  on  a  private  com- 
pany and  therefore  the  charter  ought  to  be  revoked.8  Most  law- 
yers have  heard  arguments  made  in  court  not  so  dissimilar  from 
this,  based  on  some  world-shaking  cataclysm,  which  is,  however, 
absolutely  certain  never  to  be  realized  in  actual  affairs. 

Nor  were  such  arguments,  or  rather  such  absurdities,  confined 
to  one  or  two  countries.  The  pages  of  the  following  Life  show 


5  Morley's  "  Gladstone,"  Vol.  I,  p.  309. 

*  Fiske's  "  Old  Virginia  and  Her  Neighbors,"  p.  219, 


PREFACE  15 

a  rich  instance  in  an  attempted  demonstration, —  scorned  by  Cal- 
houn, —  that  Texas  was  still  a  part  of  our  Union  in  1843,  for 
the  reason  that  the  Federal  Government  had  had  no  power  to 
convey  it  away  by  the  Treaty  of  1819.  So,  in  1609,  when  it  was 
desired  in  the  German  Empire  to  make  the  monarchical  power 
stronger,  a  young  jurist,  whose  mind  was  perhaps  obsessed  by  the 
idea  of  The  Holy  Roman  Empire,  advanced  the  thesis  that  the 
monarchy  was,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  never-repealed 
lex  regia  of  ancient  Rome,  an  absolute  one,  and  others  had  to 
demonstrate  the  unsoundness  of  this  argument  based  on  a  law 
forgotten  under  the  dust  of  centuries  and  belonging  to  the  history 
of  an  entirely  different  people.7 

Probably  the  following  extract  from  Macaulay's  review  of 
Mill's  "  Essay  on  Government "  sums  up  the  truth  as  to  such 
mental  extravaganza  as  have  been  noticed: 

The  fact  is,  that,  when  men,  in  treating  of  things  which  cannot  be  cir- 
cumscribed by  precise  definitions,  adopt  this  mode  of  reasoning,  when 
once  they  begin  to  talk  of  power,  happiness,  misery,  pain,  pleasure,  mo- 
tives, objects  of  desire,  as  they  talk  of  lines  and  numbers,  there  is  no 
end  to  the  contradictions  and  absurdities  into  which  they  fall.  There 
is  no  proposition  so  monstrously  untrue  in  morals  or  politics  that  we 
will  not  undertake  to  prove  it,  by  something  which  shall  sound  like  a 
logical  demonstration,  from  admitted  principles. 

Perhaps  then,  after  all,  Webster  used  the  best  weapons  that 
could  be  used  to  bring  about  the  birth  of  a  nation.  He  could  not 
meet  the  facts  and  the  crystal  clear  deductions  of  Calhoun's  logic 
from  them,  so  he  indulged  at  times  in  most  barefaced  assertions 
and  appealed  in  splendid  oratory  to  the  pride  and  glory  of  our 
past  and  the  promise  of  our  future,  moving  his  earlier  opponent 
Hayne  to  an  open  acknowledgment  of  this  feature  of  the  won- 
derful orations  of  1830. 

Nor  could  Webster  then  speak  of  what  students  since  the  Civil 
War,  groping  for  an  answer  to  the  State  Rights  view,  have 
called  the  historical  growth  of  our  nationalism.  Such  a  process 
was  then  not  recognized,  was  but  in  embryo,  and  any  one  who 
advanced  it  would  certainly  have  been  met  by  the  cry  of  usurpa- 
tion and  wrong.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  can  see  to-day  that, 
not  only  since  1789,  but  almost  since  our  colonies  were  founded, 
the  seeds  of  an  American  Nation  were  in  existence.  Slowly  and 

7 "  Deutsche  Geschichte "  von  Karl  Lamprecht,  Zweitc  Abtheilung. 
Erster  Band.  Zweite  Haelfte,  s.  486. 


16  PREFACE 

insensibly  they  grew  and  spread,  adding  in  time  even  new  mean- 
ing to  the  written  words  of  the  Constitution,  and  not  infrequently 
(it  must  be  admitted)  in  the  teeth  of  them,  until  by  1860  many 
mystic  cords  bound  us  together,  while  the  material  bonds  of 
the  vast  and  ever  increasing  network  of  iron  rails  and  the  constant 
intercourse  between  the  parts  added  other  nationalistic  elements 
of  vast  power. 

This  whole  subject  was  well  presented  by  Lamar  in  his  oration 
in  Charleston  in  1887  on  the  unveiling  of  the  Monument  erected 
by  the  Ladies'  Calhoun  Monument  Association,  and  the  orator 
intimated  very  plainly  to  his  Southern  audience  the  opinion  that 
Calhoun  had  entirely  neglected  to  take  into  view  essential  matters 
in  our  history,  which  were  entitled  to  great  weight  against  his 
theories.  It  was  a  bold  and  manly  view  for  a  man  of  the  South 
to  present  to  so  highly  Southern  a  community,  but  it  seems  to 
have  been  well  received.  Charles  Francis  Adams  and  others 
have  since  presented  much  the  same  view,  and  it  is  a  curious 
fact  that  Calhoun  himself  recognized  the  like  historical  growth 
in  England.8  It  is  an  interstitial  process,  very  gradual  and  ad- 
vancing by  insensible  steps,  and  perhaps  offers  the  best  mode  of 
escape  from  the  irresistible  logic  of  Calhoun  and  the  State  Rights 
School. 

What  were  these  views, —  now  so  nearly  forgotten  ?  They  are 
nowhere  consecutively  stated  as  a  whole  by  Calhoun,  but  the 
reader  interested  in  the  subject  will  find  much  of  them  in  the 
early  portions  of  his  "  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  " 9  and  in 
his  "  Letter  to  Governor  Hamilton."  10  In  the  former  he  bears 
weight  on  the  fact, —  which  was  in  1789  undoubtedly  in  general 
recognized, —  that  our  States  were  originally  nations,  small  and 
of  little  power,  it  is  true,  but  larger  than  some  in  Europe,  and 
at  the  same  time  without  any  union  at  all  among  themselves. 
They  created  the  Congress  of  the  Revolution,  voted  as  units 
in  it,  and  gave  their  agency  so  little  power  that  the  Congress  was 
obliged  even  to  appeal  to  the  States  to  pass  laws  which  it  had 
no  power  to  pass.  The  name  of  the  central  body  moreover  was 
then  and  ever  has  been  Congress,  a  word  meaning  a  meeting  to- 
gether of  nations. 

The  next  central  power, —  the  Confederation, —  was  palpably 

8  "Discourse  on  the  Constitution,"  etc.,  in   "Works,"  Vol.   I,  p.   394. 
•"  Works,"  Vol.  I,  p.  in,  etseq. 
10  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  144-193- 


PREFACE  17 

a  mere  union  of  States,  and  each  State  expressly  reserved  its 
sovereignty.  Nor  was  the  present  constitution  adopted  for  the 
whole  country  by  a  vote  of  the  majority  of  its  people,  as  it  would 
of  course  have  been,  if  we  had  been  one  nation.  No  one  seri- 
ously proposed  such  a  plan.  Each  State  adopted  for  itself  alone 
and  as  to  the  people  of  any  State  the  instrument  was  void  and 
of  no  effect,  until  that  State  should  ratify.  North  Carolina  and 
Rhode  Island  remained  out  of  the  Union  for  eight  and  fourteen 
months  respectively,  after  it  was  put  into  operation  and  there 
was  no  serious  contention  that  they  had  not  the  right  so  to  do  or 
were  willy-nilly  a  part  of  the  United  States.  On  the  other  hand, 
an  opposing  minority  in  any  State,  as  for  instance  in  the  upper 
country  of  South  Carolina,  was  at  once  swept  into  the  Union 
against  its  will  as  a  part  of  the  State  by  the  affirmative  action  of 
that  particular  State. 

Some  writers  have  sought  to  draw  far-reaching  conclusions 
from  the  language  of  certain  of  the  commissions  issued  to  dele- 
gates to  the  Constitutional  Convention.  They  forget  that  these 
commissions  conferred  no  power  but  to  mould  a  draft,  as  com- 
mittees are  appointed  to  suggest  a  form  of  contract  or  settlement. 
The  form  of  Constitution  proposed  in  May,  1787,  was  a  mere 
sketch  like  an  unsigned  deed  or  contract,  and  was  of  no  force  or 
effect  whatsoever,  until  the  breath  of  life  was  breathed  into  it. 
And  this  vital  spark  was  only  derived  from  the  later  action  of 
nine  States,  approving  quite  separately  and  each  for  itself  alone. 
Under  this  new  Constitution,  as  well  as  by  the  terms  of  the 
Confederation,  there  was  no  merger  of  the  States.  Each  remained 
an  existing  sovereignty.  Rights  and  powers  were  reserved  to 
them,  and  their  continued  maintenance  was  essential  to  the  very 
existence  of  the  government  established.  "  We,  the  people,"  on 
which  frail  phrase  the  nationalistic  school  sought  to  build  so 
much,  was  plainly  of  no  real  weight.  Not  only  did  the  preamble, 
until  nearly  the  end  of  the  Convention,  go  on  and  list  the  thirteen 
States  nomination,  but  palpably  the  change  was  made  for  the 
simple  reason  that  it  was  impossible  to  know  in  advance  which 
of  the  thirteen  would  ratify.  And  more  than  this,  a  later  clause 
of  the  instrument  already  provided  that  ratification  by  any  nine 
States  should  be  sufficient  to  establish  the  constitution  among 
the  States  so  ratifying.  How  could  the  preamble  be  left  to  read 
that  we,  the  people  of  thirteen  enumerated  States  ordain  a  con- 
stitution, the  ratification  of  which  by  any  nine  States  (the  same 


i8  PREFACE 

instrument  went  on)  was  to  be  sufficient  to  establish  it  among 
the  nine  only? 

The  Union  formed  in  1789  was  then  still  a  Union  of  States, 
and  no  consolidation.  It  was  a  more  perfect  union  than  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  and  the  new  government  was  to  act 
directly  on  individuals ;  but  the  States  did  no  act  whatsoever  from 
which  a  surrender  or  merger  of  their  sovereignty  (their  very 
existence)  could  be  inferred,  and  some  of  the  ratifications  con- 
tained assertions  plainly  negativing  such  an  idea.  To-day,  when 
the  subject  has  lost  its  importance,  I  think  the  student  will  gen- 
erally admit  all  this,  and  that  the  overwhelming  sentiment  in  1789 
and  for  a  number  of  years  afterward  admitted  and  insisted  on 
the  continuing  existence  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  States.  Had 
those  jealous  little  entities  dreamed  in  1787  and  1788  that  it 
would  be  asserted  that  they  were  to  cease  to  exist  and  to  become 
merged  into  one  nation,  few  of  them  would  have  ratified  the  instru- 
ment. Massachusetts  did  not  want  to  sink  her  existence  and 
merge  with  South  Carolina  and  the  rest  of  her  little  known  sisters, 
any  more  than  did  South  Carolina.  They  were  quite  too  far  apart 
and  too  diverse  to  have  consented  knowingly  to  such  a  course. 

To  meet  this  difficulty,  the  nationalistic  school  took  up  the  idea 
of  divided  sovereignty.  The  States  were,  it  said,  sovereign  in 
some  departments,  but  the  United  States  equally  so  in  others.  It 
is  quite  true  that  the  function  to  carry  out  certain  powers  was 
delegated  to  the  United  States  and  that  relating  to  others  reserved 
to  the  States,  but  this  was  merely  a  question  of  the  exercise  of 
these  powers  and  did  not  touch  sovereignty.  The  latter  is  by  its 
very  nature  as  incapable  of  division  as  is  life  or  personality, 
and  must  rest  as  a  whole  somewhere.  It  had  rested  with  the 
States  at  the  time  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace  with  Great  Britain,  no 
act  or  series  of  acts  of  theirs  can  be  shown  by  which  they  gave 
it  up,  and  therefore  it  still  remained  to  them. 

With  the  Union  then  a  union  between  sovereign  States,  what 
was  to  be  done,  if  the  agencies  of  the  Union  should  assume 
powers  not  granted  and  oppress  one  or  more  States?  When 
some  members  of  a  partnership  violate  the  articles,  the  suffering 
member  goes  to  court  for  redress ;  but  a  sovereign  State  cannot  do 
this.  What  is  then  its  remedy?  It  was  contended  by  the  Na- 
tionalists that,  under  certain  clauses  of  the  Constitution,  the  fed- 
eral judiciary  was  to  decide  this  problem.  That  is  to  say,  one 
mere  department  of  the  agency  which  the  States  had  created,  was 


PREFACE  19 

to  pass  judgment  on  questions  as  to  the  authorities  that  the 
creators  had  conferred  on  the  central  Government,  even  when 
one  or  many  of  the  creating  States  denied  the  existence  of  the 
power.  A  vast  function,  indeed,  and  unlimited, —  the  like  of 
which  was  surely  never  before  conferred  upon  one  department  of 
an  agency  or  derivative  government !  Nor  had  the  judiciary  ever 
in  history  been  meant  to  decide  questions  of  national  power,  of 
sovereignty,  and  to  conclude  the  whole  world.  Their  function 
is  to  decide, —  and  of  course  finally  decide, —  suits  between  par- 
ties; but  this  does  not  extend  to  deciding  Who  is  the  King,  or 
what  the  ultimate  nature  of  the  United  States  Government,  or 
any  other  question  of  a  political  nature. 

So  it  is  infinitely  unlikely  that  this  idea,  so  foreign  to  the  highly 
educated  publicists  of  the  Convention,  was  in  their  minds;  and 
their  language  is  absolutely  satisfied  by  supposing  it  to  mean  sim- 
ply that  the  judiciary  was  to  settle  and  conclude  suits  between 
parties.  To  these  decisions  would  be  attached  the  weight  that 
belonged  to  precedents  in  Anglo-Saxon  countries,  but  this  had  not 
extended  to  concluding  Parliament  or  the  Commons  on  a  question 
of  power.  There  is  little  reason  to  suppose  that  our  founders 
meant  to  give  far  greater  influence  to  the  judiciary  they  were 
creating,  and  authorize  them  to  settle  finally  what  was  the  extent 
of  the  powers  conferred  by  the  States  on  the  Central  Government 
and  in  so  doing  to  conclude  not  only  the  rights  of  the  parties 
to  the  suit  but  the  rights  of  the  creating  States. 

The  question  then  recurs:  How  were  disputes  as  to  the  ex- 
istence or  non-existence  of  a  power  to  be  settled?  The  States, 
it  has  been  already  said,  were  different  from  the  members  of  a 
partnership.  The  latter  had  a  superior  over  them,  could  appeal 
in  an  orderly  way  to  a  civil  court  and  thus  obtain  and  easily 
enforce  a  decision.  But  the  States,  with  their  proud  attribute 
of  sovereignty  knew  no  superior,  and  had  only  the  remedies  in- 
cident to  sovereignty.  It  was  here  that  Nullification  or  State  In- 
terposition was  brought  in,  first  threatened  and  barely  sketched  in 
the  rough  in  1798-99  and  its  details  worked  out  to  completeness 
under  Calhoun's  inspiration  in  1828-33.  The  claim  was  that 
any  one  of  our  States  had, —  as  a  nation  voluntarily  united  in  a 
league  with  others, —  the  right  to  decide  for  itself  as  to  the 
extent  of  the  powers  it  had  conferred  on  the  central  agency,  and 
to  prevent  the  enforcement  within  its  limits  of  any  Congressional 
statute  which  it  held  was  unauthorized.  This  is  what  South 


20  PREFACE 

Carolina  did  in  1832,  and  this  the  basis  of  reasoning  on  which 
was  rested  her  action. 

To-day  it  seems  absurd  to  almost  every  American,  but  at  its 
date  there  was  a  large  sprinkling  throughout  the  country  of  men 
of  brilliant  intellect  and  of  the  highest  character,  to  whom  every 
step  in  the  argument, —  and  the  conclusion  as  well, —  was  as 
plain  as  Holy  Writ ;  while  in  our  earlier  history  under  the  present 
Constitution,  hosts  of  our  public  men  would  hardly  have  had  a 
doubt  upon  the  question. 

But  the  results  of  Nullification,  as  applied  in  practice,  were  most 
extraordinary.  Let  us  consider  the  one  concrete  instance.  Tariff 
laws,  partly  intended  for  protection,  were  nullified  under  the 
claim  that  the  power  to  pass  such  laws  was  palpably  not  con- 
ferred, yet  in  the  first  session  of  the  First  Congress  under  our 
present  Constitution,  protection  was  discussed  to  no  little  extent, 
and  the  very  second  law  on  the  statute  books  recited  as  one  rea- 
son for  its  passage  the  necessity  for  "the  encouragement  and 
protection  of  manufacturers  that  duties  be  laid  on  goods."  Cal- 
houn,  too,  who  was  the  chief  advocate  of  the  Nullification  in 
1832,  had  voted  for  the  Act  of  1816  and  numbers  of  his  utter- 
ances are  quoted  in  this  Life,  which  show  that  he  was  to  no 
little  extent  inspired  in  his  earlier  public  life  with  the  desire  to 
have  Congress  pass  laws  for  protection.  And,  besides  this,  he  and 
numbers  of  the  leaders  standing  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  him  in 
the  contest  of  1828-33  na<^  only  too  recently  been  strong  nation- 
alists, spurning  the  State  Rights  views  of  Cooper  and  others. 

In  the  face  of  this  record,  it  was  a  mere  paper  limitation  that 
Calhoun  built  when  he  wrote  in  his  "  Discourse "  u  that  nulli- 
fication was  only  to  be  exercised  in  case  of  "  a  clear  and  palpable 
infraction  of  the  instrument"  [the  Constitution].  The  instance 
is  one  more  example  of  how  in  such  arguments  each  party  ever 
assumes  that  its  side  will  act  in  an  orderly  way  and  not  go  an 
inch  beyond  the  perpendicular.  In  reality  it  always  is  and  was 
in  this  case  too  plain  for  discussion  that  the  asserted  right  was 
almost  certain  to  be  exercised  for  getting  rid  of  any  course  of 
legislation  a  particular  State  might  seriously .  dislike,  no  matter 
how  slight  the  injury  or  how  little  the  unconstitutionality  might 
be  palpable.  And  it  furnished  an  almost  certain  device  to  undo 
the  law;  for  the  claim  of  the  theory  was  that,  when  one  State 
interposed  its  sovereign  voice  against  a  particular  statute,  that 

""Works,"  Vol.  I,  p.  280. 


PREFACE  21 

statute  was  at  once  to  cease  to  be  of  effect  within  its  limits,  and 
the  power  it  was  based  on  was  to  be  finally  decided  not  to  exist 
at  all,  unless,  by  a  process  similar  to  that  of  amendment,  three 
quarters  of  the  States  should  affirmatively  decide  that  the  power 
did  exist.  An  easy  way  indeed  for  a  very  small  minority  to 
control  a  very  large  majority  and  to  re- write  the  terms  of  the 
constitution ! 

Perhaps,  there  is  some  evidence  that  Calhoun  felt  these  diffi- 
culties of  the  impracticability  of  "  the  high  prerogative  remedy," 
and  hence  conceded  the  necessity  of  a  justification  for  nullifying, 
as  well  as  elaborated  the  idea  that,  after  nullification  by  one  State, 
the  others  should  call  upon  the  amending  process,  and  to  this  added 
that  the  nullifying  State  must  then  submit  to  the  result,  and  should 
the  power  be  affirmed  to  exist,  must  either  cease  its  objection  or 
withdraw  from  the  Union.12  Clearly  needed  though  some  such 
corollary  was  to  the  decent  administration  of  affairs,  I,  at  least, 
can  see  nothing  in  the  theories  of  sovereignty  that  leads  to  or 
even  permits  the  corollary  and  the  control  of  the  States'  sover- 
eignty by  such  an  outside  influence.  Sovereignty  never  has  been 
controlled  by  such  means,  did  not  need  a  justification,  and  it  looks 
like  an  addition  devised  in  order  to  make  the  central  theory  work- 
able and  avoid  a  confusion  worse  confounded.  It  was  probably 
the  like  feeling  that  led  Calhoun  to  object  to  the  term  Nullifi- 
cation and  long  to  use  instead  that  of  State  Interposition,  which 
pointed  to  this  corollary  devised  by  him. 

Such  was  Nullification.  And  even  in  those  early  days,  when 
Nationalism  was  a  new-born  babe  or  an  embryo,  so  striking 
were  the  incongruities  sure  to  flow  from  nullification  that  as  sturdy 
a  State-Rights  man  as  Nathaniel  Macon  refused  to  accept  it,  at 
the  same  time  that  he  asserted  to  the  full  the  right  of  any  State 
to  secede  at  will  from  the  Union.13 

The  right  of  secession  concerns  us  less  intimately  here,  but  would 
have  received  pretty  general, —  or  at  least  very  frequent, —  recog- 
nition in  1789  and  for  numbers  of  years  later.  It  was  an  ever- 
present  dread  of  our  earlier  statesmen,  as  may  be  seen  from  a 
thousand  of  their  utterances.  As  a  recent  author  has  summed 
the  matter  up:14  "Both  [North  and  South]  alike,  when  inde- 
pendence was  declared,  and  even  when  the  Constitution  was 

12  Letter  to  Governor  Hamilton,  Jenkins'  "  Life,"  pp.  214,  222. 

13  Wm.  E.  Dodd's  "  Nathaniel  Macon,"  p.  385. 

14  Garrison's  "  Westward  Extension,"  p.   12. 


23  PREFACE 

adopted,  regarded  the  Union  as  a  confederacy  from  which  any 
State  might  withdraw  if  it  desired  to  do  so."  And  other  recent 
writers  could  be  referred  to  who  have  reached  very  similar  con- 
clusions,15 while  such  could  be  plainly  shown  to  have  been  the  be- 
lief of  hosts  of  our  earlier  men.16  They  often  spoke  in  that  day 
of  their  State  as  their  country. 

But  even  here,  so  doubtful  are  such  abstract  questions  as  the 
rights  of  a  sovereignty,  so  much  are  they  perhaps  bound  up 
with  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the  others  with  whom  a  league  or 
union  has  been  formed,  that  possibly,  after  all,  a  justification  is 
necessary  for  one  or  more  members  doing  an  act  that  the  others 
regard  as  injurious  to  them.  Plighted  faith  can  hardly  be  denied 
all  weight  in  the  matter.  It  was  evidently  with  this  in  mind  that 
Gladstone,  though  at  heart  against  the  North,  wrote  to  Cyrus  Field 
in  1862: 

Your  frightful  conflict  may  be  regarded  from  many  points  of  view. 
The  competency  of  the  Southern  States  to  secede:  the  rightfulness  of 
their  conduct  in  seceding  (two  matters  wholly  distinct  and  a  great  deal 
too  much  confounded), 

And  again: 

There  is  last  and  (relatively  to  this  subject-matter)  best  of  all  the 
strong  instinct  of  national  life,  and  the  abhorrence  of  nature  itself 
towards  the  severance  of  an  organized  body.17 

It  is  impossible  here  to  go  at  length  into  the  question  whether  or 
not  South  Carolina  had  a  sufficient  justification  in  1832,  or  the 
South  in  1861.  In  the  latter  case  laws  by  the  score  had  been 
passed  in  the  North  in  violation  of  plain  promises  contained  in  the 
Constitution,  but  they  were  defended  under  the  claim  of  a  "  higher 
law.'*  And  then  still  another  question  arises  whether  the  exist- 
ence of  this  higher  law  can  be  recognized.  The  question  thus 
becomes  nearly  infinite  in  its  ramifications. 

15  See,  for  example,  Claude  H.  Van  Tyne's  "  Sovereignty  in  the  Ameri- 
can Revolution"  in  Vol.  XII,  "American  Historical  Review,"  pp.  529-45, 
or  his  later  "The  American  Revolution." 

18  See  Wm,  E.  Dodd's  "Life  of  Nathaniel  Macon,"  p.  n,  and  same 
author's  "  Life  of  Jefferson  Davis,"  p.  207 ;  Pendleton's  "  Stephens,"  pp. 
108,  117-120,  186  et  seq.;  R.  T.  Bennett's  "Address  at  Raleigh,  N.  C,  on 
May  22,  1894,"  in  "  Southern  History  Society  Papers,"  Vol.  XXII,  p.  83. 

"Morley's  "Gladstone,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  71,  72. 


PREFACE  23 

In  what  way  the  heart  was  slowly  and  insensibly  eaten  out 
of  the  earlier  view  as  to  the  powers  and  rights  of  the  States 
could  not  possibly  be  traced.  It  never  was  abandoned  in  the 
South  until  after  the  Civil  War;  and  numbers  of  leading  men 
in  the  North  asserted  ultra  State  Rights  views  down  to  as  late  as 
1861,  whenever  the  interests  of  their  section  were  severely  pinched. 
The  abolitionists,  of  course,  ever  railed  at  the  Union,  but  far 
sounder  minds  did  the  same  thing.  The  opposition  in  the  North 
to  the  annexation  of  Texas  squinted  dreadfully  toward  Nullifi- 
cation, and  John  Quincy  Adams  urged  resolutions  that  "  any  at- 
tempt to  annex  the  Republic  of  Texas  to  this  Union  would  be  a 
violation  of  the  Constitution,  null  and  void,  and  to  which  the  free 
States  of  the  Union,  and  their  people,  ought  not  to  submit"18 
Any  number  of  like  opinions  could  be  cited  from  others,  and 
Seward's  "  higher  law  "  was  but  Nullification  viewed  from  another 
angle. 

But,  despite  these  occasional  instances,  probably  the  North  had 
come  by  1861  to  look  upon  our  country  as  a  Nation.  The  his- 
torical growth  of  our  Nationalism  was  there  recognized  by  that 
time.  But  the  difficulty  still  remains  that  the  other  large  and 
contiguous  area  of  our  country, —  the  South, —  did  not  recognize 
it,  but  adhered  consistently  to  the  beliefs  of  1789  and  later.  And 
how  then  the  problem  is  to  be  settled  and  a  satisfactory  explana- 
tion to  be  formulated  why  one  party  was  wrong  in  its  constitu- 
tional contentions  in  1861-65,  and  which  party  was  the  wrong  one, 
must  be  for  other  pens. 

Our  feelings,  our  universal  present  views  as  to  the  absolute  ne- 
cessity of  the  result  attained,  lead  us  rapidly  and  instantly  to  a 
conclusion,  but  the  pale  cast  of  thought  is  far  from  an  aid.  To 
view  the  obverse  of  this  coin  is  but  to  bring  in  difficulties, —  per- 
haps not  doubts, —  and,  as  with  Milton's  angels  discussing  "  fixed 
fate,  free  will,  foreknowledge  absolute,"  the  mind  is  soon  "in 
wandering  mazes  lost." 

Probably  a  recent  writer,  quoted  immediately  above,  has  well 
put  some  truths  in  regard  to  the  real  essence  of  the  matter.  Con- 
trol, power,  the  virile  desire  to  rule  and  even  to  exploit,  lay  back 
of  much  of  the  history.  Mr.  Garrison  goes  on, —  directly  after 
what  has  been  quoted  from  him  shortly  above : 

""Memoirs,"  Vol.  XI,  p.  330. 


24  PREFACE 

And  this  view  the  South  continued  to  hold  afterwards  —  even  to  the 
extreme  of  secession  and  Civil  War ;  but  the  North,  seeing  the  advantage 
of  the  national  machinery  provided  by  the  Constitution  for  the  support 
of  its  policy  and  the  promotion  of  its  interests,  was  gradually  led  to  use 
its  growing  strength  through  that  machinery  and  to  adopt  the  nationalistic 
attitude.  Under  such  circumstances,  it  was  but  natural  for  the  weaker 
South,  even  if  there  had  been  far  less  historical  justification  for  its 
attitude,  to  fall  back  on  the  defensive  theory  of  State  Rights. 

Here  the  problem  must  rest,  so  far  as  the  present  writer  is 
concerned.  Perhaps  some  day  a  mind  with  the  analytical  power 
that  Calhoun  possessed  will  grapple  with  the  subject  and  point 
out  to  us  the  true  conclusion  of  reason.  And,  when  this  is  done, 
probably  no  great  share  of  blame  in  a  human  sense  will  after  all 
adhere  to  either  of  the  great  contestants  in  the  monumental  and 
inevitable  struggle  of  1861-65. 

My  thanks  are  due  to  a  great  many  persons.  Without  the  aid 
of  the  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  brought  together  by  Professor 
Jameson,  my  task  could  not  have  been  accomplished.  Some  few 
other  collections  of  letters  in  manuscript  and  in  print  have  come  to 
my  knowledge,  and  every  assistance  in  going  over  those  in  manu- 
script has  been  rendered  me  by  their  owners,  whose  names  are  all 
mentioned  in  the  text.  To  Mr.  Gaillard  Hunt,  of  the  Manuscript 
Division  of  the  Library  of  Congress,  I  am  particularly  in- 
debted for  calling  my  attention  to  highly  important  letters  in  the 
Library  and  for  aid  in  going  over  them  and  in  solving  some 
of  the  mysteries  they  present.  From  Miss  FitzSimons,  Li- 
brarian of  the  Charleston  Library  Society,  I  have  received  fre- 
quent aid  in  consulting  the  Society's  very  large  collection  of  news- 
papers, and  in  efforts  to  unfathom  various  matters.  Mr.  Theo- 
dore D.  Jervey,  author  of  the  "  Life  of  Hayne,"  has  most  kindly 
aided  me  in  many  instances  with  his  knowledge  of  the  South 
Carolina  law  system,  as  well  as  in  regard  to  matters  of  local  his- 
tory and  of  geography,  which  I  was  unable  to  understand.  Mr. 
Salley,  head  of  the  South  Carolina  Historical  Commission,  has 
aided  me  in  an  examination  of  some  of  the  early  legislative  pro- 
ceedings of  South  Carolina,  still  in  manuscript,  and  has  also  kindly 
allowed  me  to  reproduce  certain  illustrations  contained  in  his  arti- 
cle on  the  Calhoun  family  mentioned  early  in  my  text.  Mr.  Edwin 
Calhoun  of  Abbeville,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  A.  P.  Calhoun  of  Atlanta, 
the  authorities  of  Clemson  College,  and  Mr.  W.  A.  Clark,  Presi- 
dent of  the  Carolina  National  Bank  in  Columbia,  have  all  allowed 
me  to  have  photographs  made  of  various  portraits  owned  either 


PREFACE  25 

by  them  or  their  institution,  and  there  are  numbers  of  others  who 
have  aided  me  in  different  ways.  Many  of  these  are  mentioned 
in  the  text,  and  my  sincerest  thanks  are  due  and  rendered  to  all. 

In  regard  to  the  illustrations  contained  in  these  volumes  suf- 
ficient information  is  generally  contained  in  the  legends,  but  in 
some  instances  this  is  not  the  case.  The  frontispiece  to  the  first 
volume  is  thought  to  be  from  the  portrait  owned  by  Mr.  Patrick 
Calhoun  and  to  have  been  painted  at  the  time  when  Calhoun  was 
Secretary  of  War.  It  was  not  possible  to  secure  a  copy  of  the 
original  painting  in  time. 

The  Reeve  Law  School  Building  was  erected  by  Reeve  in  1782 
on  the  same  lot  on  South  Street  on  which  his  dwelling-house 
stood.  It  was  later  removed  and  used  as  a  part  of  a  dwelling,  but 
was  carefully  restored  by  Dwight  C.  Kilbourn,  and  in  1911  was 
removed  to  its  present  site  on  the  grounds  of  the  Litchfield  His- 
torical Society.  The  Gould  Building  was  erected  by  Gould  in 
1795  on  the  lot  on  North  Street,  where  his  residence  stood,  but 
was,  after  the  giving  up  of  the  Law  School,  removed  a  mile  west 
of  the  village,  was  there  occupied  for  a  time  by  a  family  of 
negroes,  and  was  finally  destroyed.19 

The  portrait  by  Rembrandt  Peale,  forming  the  frontispiece  to 
the  second  volume,  was  painted  for  Mrs.  Armistead  Burt,  Cal- 
houn's  niece.  It  is  marked  as  having  been  painted  in  1834,  but 
it  has  had  some  serious  vicissitudes,  and  in  a  letter  to  Armistead 
Burt,  dated  November  17,  1838,  Calhoun  writes : 20 

My  factor  in  Charleston  writes  me  that  he  has  received  the  Portrait 
from  Mr.  Peile  [sic]  and  that  the  cost  including  the  difference  of  ex- 
change is  $103  25/100,  which  you  will  please  pay  my  brother  William  on 
my  account  I  hope  you  will  be  pleased  with  it. 

The  present  owner  is  Mrs.  Thomas  Frost  of  Charleston,  whose 
mother  was  brought  up  by  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Burt  and  often  stayed 
also  at  Fort  Hill,  when  going  to  school.  Mrs.  Frost  has  fre- 
quently heard  her  mother  say  that  Calhoun  thought  this  portrait 
the  best  ever  painted  of  him. 

The  War  Department  portrait  reproduced  at  page  38  of  Vol- 
ume II  is  said  to  have  been  found  about  1870  by  Secretary  Bel- 
knap  in  an  attic  at  West  Point  and  to  have  been  removed  by  him 
to  the  Department  in  Washington. 

18  Dwight  C.  Kilbourn's  "  Bench  and  Bar  of  Litchfield  County,  Conn.," 
pp.  191,  195.  Pamphlet  "  Presentation  Exercises.  The  Litchfield  Law 
School,  1911." 

20  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  416-17. 


26  PREFACE 

The  full-length  portrait  at  page  374  of  Volume  II  is  from  a 
painting  at  Clemson  College  which  has  on  it  a  plate  reading: 
"Details  of  likeness  from  Brady's  Celebrated  Daguerreotype. 
Painted  by  T.  Hicks.  Engraved  by  A.  H.  Ritchie.  Published 
by  R.  A.  Bachia,  12  Dey  Street."  Another  copy  hangs  in  the 
Carolina  National  Bank  at  Columbia  and  an  engraving  of  the 
same  is  owned  by  Mr.  Edwin  Calhoun  of  Abbeville.  The  por- 
trait seems  to  be  the  original  from  which  has  been  made,  with 
several  minor  variations,  the  head  and  shoulders  of  Calhoun  re- 
produced in  Davis's  "  Rise  and  Fall,"  Stephens's  "  War  between 
the  States,"  and  many  other  works.  These  reproductions  are 
often  spoken  of  as  "  the  DeBloch  "  portrait,  but  are  in  reality 
quite  different.  Mrs.  A.  P.  Calhoun,  the  granddaughter  of  Mrs. 
Clemson,  has  kindly  loaned  me  a  copy  of  De  Bloch's  portrait, 
three  copies  of  which  were  made  in  Belgium  from  a  miniature 
in  a  bracelet,  but  which  was  not  liked  (so  Mrs.  Calhoun  informs 
me)  by  the  family.  It  differs  in  many  respects  from  the  ordinary 
cut.  Capt.  John  C.  Calhoun  of  New  York  owns  a  second  copy 
of  the  De  Bloch  portrait. 

WILLIAM  M.  MEIGS. 
PHILADELPHIA. 


THE  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

CHAPTER  I 

PRELIMINARY 

The  Upper  Country  of  South  Carolina  —  Ancestry  of  John  C. 

Calhoun. 

THE  settlement  of  America  has  been  full  of  romance.  The 
resistless  power  of  the  colonists  pushing  on  across  the  conti- 
nent and  forever  subduing  new  regions  to  their  control  re- 
sembles the  action  of  one  of  the  forces  of  nature  in  its  in- 
tensity and  persistent  pressure.  Halted  and  dammed  up  here 
and  there  for  a  time,  the  wave  of  humanity  has  always  ere 
long  broken  over  the  barrier  and  kept  on  upon  its  course,  until 
finally  the  shores  of  the  Western  Ocean  itself  were  reached. 
Men,  the  petty  pawns  of  the  social  forces,  have  been  worn  out 
and  sacrificed  by  the  thousand  on  the  crest  of  this  torrent- 
like  surge  of  humanity;  but  a  vast  destiny  has  thereby  been 
opened  up  to  our  branch  of  the  human  race.  The  frontier, 
that  outward  edge  of  civilization  beyond  which  lay  only  wild 
nature,  has  been  pushed  steadily  on,  and  now  for  some  years 
we  have  had  no  frontier-town  in  the  American  sense.  From 
ocean  to  ocean,  the  whole  of  our  territory  has  been  harnessed 
to  civilization. 

The  history  of  few  regions  concerned  in  this  growth  offers 
so  much  of  stirring  interest  as  does  that  of  the  foot-hills  and 
easternmost  valleys  of  the  long  Appalachian  chain  of  moun- 
tains. It  is  true  that  the  first  comers  to  Virginia  and  Massa- 
chusetts found  terrible  difficulties  to  overcome,  but  in  general 
the  settlers  in  what  are  now  our  Middle  and  upper  Southern 
States  had  a  comparatively  easy  task  in  filling  the  coastal  plains 
and  the  fertile  river  valleys.  They  and  their  immediate  suc- 

37 


28  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

cessors  spread  rapidly  over  the  rich  country  to  the  westward, 
and  in  a  remarkably  short  course  of  years  created  a  series 
of  separate  colonies  lying  along  the  shores  of  the  Atlantic  and 
reaching  inward  nearly  to  the  mountains,  each  colony  with  its 
own  customs  and  with  systems  of  law  materially  different  the 
one  from  the  other. 

But  the  great  Appalachian  chain  of  mountains  once  reached, 
the  story  was  very  different.  Those  towering  hills  were  not 
to  be  passed  by  ordinary  men.  The  mere  barrier  of  nature 
was  almost  insuperable  under  the  then  conditions  and  would 
alone  have  long  delayed  settlement ;  but,  besides  this,  entrance 
upon  the  frowning  mountain  region  meant  also  bloody  con- 
flict with  the  French,  the  powerful  rivals  of  the  English  in 
America.  Many  years  elapsed  before  these  hindrances  began 
to  be  solved,  and  a  new  race  had  to  enter  upon  the  scene  in 
order  to  overcome  the  obstruction.  Neither  the  Quaker  of 
Pennsylvania,  the  Dutch  of  New  York,  the  Catholic  of  Mary- 
land, nor  the  Cavalier  of  Virginia  was  alone  competent  to 
the  task. 

The  Scotch-Irish  was  the  race  that  in  the  main  accomplished 
this  labor  of  Hercules.  That  strange  people,  made  up  of 
qualities  so  diverse,  with  a  large  dash  of  evil  and  so  much 
good  in  its  character,  and  of  such  unlimited  pluck  and  en- 
durance, forced  its  way  almost  inch  by  inch  over  the  rough 
foot-hills  and  lesser  spurs  of  the  mountains  and  ere  long 
found  itself  in  a  rich  region  of  smiling  and  fertile  valleys. 
And  these  valleys  did  not  run  inland  as  did  those  of  the  coastal 
plains,  toward  the  interior  of  the  continent,  but  extended  in 
a  southwesterly  direction,  roughly  parallel  to  the  shores  of  the 
ocean  as  well  as  to  the  great  chain  of  mountains. 

Down  along  the  course  of  these  valleys  these  Scotch-Irish 
and  their  descendants  swept  on,  with  numbers  augmented  by 
adventurous  spirits  from  many  other  sources,  until  they  had 
reduced  to  possession  a  long  strip  of  territory  lying  inland 
from  the  older  settlements  and  stretching  from  Western  Penn- 
sylvania southwestwiardly  down  the  troughs  of  the  mountain 
valleys  to  Tennessee  and  the  Carolinas,  where  the  mountains 
give  out  and  end  in  a  rich  and  rolling  country.  Constituting 


PRELIMINARY  29 

the  "  backwoodsmen  "  of  Pennsylvania,  they  were  generally 
known  in  Virginia  as  the  "  dwellers  in  the  back  country," 
while  in  the  region  we  have  to  do  with  their  section  was 
usually  called  "  the  upper  country." 

In  all  this  long  tongue  of  territory  occupied  by  them  and  ly- 
ing to  the  west  of  the  coastal  plains  they  had  a  fairly  uniform 
civilization  of  their  own  and  were  not  greatly  influenced  either 
by  the  Quakers  of  Pennsylvania  or  by  any  of  the  other  races 
with  which  they  came  in  contact.  And  despite  the  long  course 
of  years  now  elapsed  since  they  came  into  the  region,  one  may 
still  see  to-day  in  many  of  the  inhabitants  the  bolt  upright  hair 
and  other  lineaments  of  the  old  type,  as  pure  as  it  was  in  the 
days  of  Calhoun,  of  Jackson,  or  of  their  ancestors. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  record  the  ceaseless  struggle  that 
this  virile  people  had  with  nature  and  with  that  terrible  enemy, 
the  American  Indian.  Some  instances,  indeed,  of  these  fea- 
tures will  come  out  later  in  the  lives  of  early  Calhouns,  but 
no  extended  sketch  of  that  branch  of  history  belongs  here. 
Suffice  it  merely  to  call  the  reader's  attention  to  this  element 
in  that  people's  life,  and  to  remind  him  that  by  virtue  of  their 
position  the  settlers  in  the  Appalachian  valleys  and  in  the  upper 
country  of  South  Carolina  were  the  pickets  and  outlying 
forces  to  ward  off  Indian  attack.  They  were  thus  almost  cer- 
tain to  be  scattered  and  ruined  before  the  dwellers  in  the  more 
settled  regions  would  even  know  that  the  savages  were  on  the 
war-path. 

To  this  Scotch-Irish  race  of  such  strange  contrasts  of  char- 
acter belonged,  on  both  his  father's  side  and  his  mother's,  the 
ancestors  of  John  Caldwell  Calhoun.  In  personal  appearance 
he  bore  clearly  enough  the  marks  of  his  ancestry;  but  I,  at 
least,  am  unable  to  see  the  prevalence  of  the  type  in  his  mental 
make-up.  The  human  mind  is  too  subtle  to  allow  us  to  trace 
with  any  clearness  the  origin  of  its  peculiarities,  and  possibly 
we  must  be  contented  to  suppose  that  the  mind  of  this  great 
American  statesman  was  somewhat  in  the  nature  of  what  the 
thought  of  modern  times  calls  a  sport,  or  perhaps  that  his 
race  was  in  the  uncertain  equilibrium  of  the  mutants  of  some 
thinkers.  In  his  father  we  shall  find  some  of  his  qualities,  but, 


30  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C  CALHOUN 

so  far  as  we  know,  none  of  that  cold  and  relentless  reason- 
ing, clear  as  the  waters  of  the  Gulf  Stream  and  as  crushing 
and  resistless  as  fate,  which  so  distinguished  the  son.  And 
surely  in  the  probable  history  of  the  families  in  their  old  home, 
we  cannot  imagine  much  that  might  go  to  develop  a  profound 
thinker  and  overwhelming  logician. 

As  we  go  backward  in  history,  toward  the  beginnings  of 
things,  it  is  not  usually  long  before  a  period  of  mist  and  un- 
certainty is  reached,  where  one  gropes  in  darkness,  able  to  do 
little  better  than  guess  from  supposed  probabilities.  So  it 
is  in  a  marked  degree  with  the  origin  of  families;  and  I  do 
not  think  the  case  is  different  with  the  clan  of  Calhoun.  One 
member  of  the  family,  however,  writes  that  its  history  "  has 
been  distinctly  traced  back  to  the  reign  of  Gregory  the  Great, 
and  connected  with  the  Earl  of  Lexon  in  Dumbartonshire, 
Scotland,  and  one  of  the  younger  sons  of  King  Conock  of 
Ireland,  who  came  to  the  same  region  at  that  period.  The 
name  of  Conock  soon  became  corrupted  into  Colquohoun, 
Colquhoun,  Colchoun  and  finally  Calhoun.  The  first  ances- 
tor who  obtained  the  barony  of  Colquhoun  in  Dumbarton- 
shire was  Umphredies,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Second/' l 

Another  writer  2  undertakes  to  fix  the  date  of  ancient  oc- 

1 "  The  National  Register  of  the  Society  Sons  of  the  American  Revolu- 
tion," sub  "Capt.  John  Caldwelf  Calhoun"  (a  grandson  of  the  Senator), 
pp.  721-723.  Captain  Calhoun  gives  no  authorities.  The  curious  may 
turn,  too,  to  the  sketch  of  the  Calhoun  family  given  in  Charles  Croslegh's 
"  Descent  and  Alliances  of  Croslegh,  &c.,"  (of  which  there  is  a  copy  in 
the  Library  of  the  University  of  South  Carolina,  at  Columbia).  This 
begins  with  Umfridis  (b.  1190),  and  has  a  Rev.  Alexander  (b.  1662),  the 
eighteenth  in  descent  from  him,  whose  son  James  married  Catherine  Mont- 
gomery and  came  out  to  America,  with  his  brothers,  Ezekiel  and  Patrick. 
Mr.  Croslegh  doubts  the  accuracy  of  this  account,  which  had  been  sent 
him. 

2  Col.  W.  Pinkney  Starke  in  his  "  Account  of  Calhoun's  Early  Life,"  as 
abridged  in  "Correspondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun,"  edited  by  Prof.  J. 
Franklin  Jameson  (published  in  Annual  Report  of  the  American  His- 
torical Association  for  1899),  pp.  65-89.  Col.  Starke's  account  has  been 
severely  criticised,  and  certainly  with  justice  in  many  particulars,  in  the 
"South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Magazine"  Vol.  II  (1901), 
pp.  158-163;  248,  249;  but  there  are  many  statements  in  his  sketch  for 
which  he  cites  either  local  knowledge  or  reminiscences  given  him  by  nearly 
related  members  of  the  family.  The  difficulty  is,  of  course,  to  determine 
what  statements  do  and  what  do  not  rest  on  such  authority. 


PRELIMINARY  31 

currences  with  a  minuteness  that  unavoidably  leads  one  to 
doubt  his  accuracy.  He  tells  us  that  "  among  the  emigrants 
from  Scotland  to  North  Ireland  who  crossed  the  channel 
early  in  the  eighteenth  century  was  a  family  of  Colquohouns 
and  another  of  Caldwells  [the  family  name  of  Calhoun's 
mother].  The  Gaelic  clan  Colquhoun  is  said  to  have  been 
very  respectable  in  numbers.  The  Caldwells  were  Lowlanders 
from  the  Frith  of  Solway."  He  continues  that  owing  to  bad 
crops  in  the  north  of  Ireland  in  1727-28-29,  the  Calhouns,  who 
had  settled  in  county  Donegal,  concluded  to  remove  to  Amer- 
ica. Three  brothers  Calhoun,  he  goes  on,  emigrated  in  1733 
and  arrived  in  New  York,  but  soon  removed  to  the  western 
part  of  Pennsylvania  and  later  to  Virginia.  One  of  these  three 
brothers  was  James,  who  with  Catherine,  his  wife,  and  four 
sons,  James,  William,  Patrick  and  Ezekiel,  thus  ventured  to 
take  their  chances  in  the  New  World. 

Many  of  these  statements  are  borne  out  by  an  authority,3 
which  may  be  fully  relied  upon  as  reproducing  at  least  what 
Calhoun  himself  believed  in  regard  to  the  origin  of  his  family. 
And  whether  the  Caldwells  were  Lowlanders,  or  the  Col- 
quhouns  left  Scotland  for  Ireland  at  about  the  date  asserted 
by  Col.  Starke  or  not,  it  is  at  least  clear  from  all  the  authorities 
that  Calhoun's  mother,  Martha  Caldwell,  as  well  as  his  father, 

*  "  Life  of  John  C.  Calhoun,"  printed  anonymously  in  1843  as  a  cam- 
paign biography.  This  publication  was  always  attributed  to  Robert  M.  T. 
Hunter,  until  Mr.  Gaillard  Hunt  found  in  the  Cralle  papers  a  letter  of 
R.  B.  Rhett  to  Cralle,  dated  in  1854,  in  which  Rhett  says  that  it  was  almost 
entirely  written  by  Calhoun  himself.  Rhett  was  asked  at  the  time  to  let 
it  be  published  under  his  name,  but  refused  to  appear  as  the  author  of 
what  he  had  not  written.  Hunter  was  then  selected,  and  Rhett  and  Hunter 
read  it  over  at  Rhett's  house.  Rhett  says  that  Hunter  "inserted  about 
a  page  and  a  half  and  became  the  putative  author."  See  Mr.  Hunt's 
Article  in  "American  Historical  Review,"  Vol.  XIII,  p.  311,  and  resumt 
in  his  "Life  of  Calhoun,"  pp.  250-251.  Calhoun  wrote  of  the  publication 
at  the  time  to  his  daughter,  saying  merely  that  Hunter  had  "  re-written 
most  of  the  [sketch]  so  much  so  as  to  be  fairly  entitled  to  the  authorship," 
while  a  letter  to  his  brother-in-law  speaks  of  transmitting  by  mail  "a 
sketch  of  my  life,  prepared  by  some  of  my  friends  here,"  u  Correspond- 
ence," pp.  524-525.  Still  more  indicative  of  the  real  authorship  is,  per- 
haps, a  letter  dated  October  25,  1842,  to  Calhoun  from  Joseph  A.  Scoville, 
later  his  clerk  and  a  political  supporter.  Scoville  writes:  "As  soon 
as  possible,  I  would  advise  your  sending  me  the  proposed  life,  etc.  I 
have  seen  the  publishers,  and  they  will  wait  very  willingly.  I  will  select 
some  one  here  to  edit  it."  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  855,  856. 


32  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Patrick  Calhoun,  was  Irish.  There  seems  to  be  no  clear  proof 
as  to  exactly  where  the  family  landed  in  America,  but  Cal- 
houn says  in  his  "  Autobiography  "  that  they  were  first  in 
Pennsylvania,  "  where  they  remained  some  years,"  and  then 
moved  to  the  western  part  of  Virginia. 

Further,  as  Patrick  Calhoun  died  on  February  15,  1796,* 
in  the  sixty-ninth  year  of  his  age,  and  as  the  family  is  posi- 
tively found  in  Virginia  in  1746,  after  having  been  some 
years  in  Pennsylvania,  we  may  assume  that  Col.  Starke's  fixing 
of  1733  as  the  date  of  their  emigration  is  not  far  wrong.  At 
least,  it  cannot  have  been  more  than  a  few  years  later.  It  is 
equally  clear  that  Patrick  Calhoun  must  have  been  brought  out 
as  a  child,  or  at  most  a  youth. 

I  know  of  no  evidence  from  public  records  that  the  family 
lived  in  Pennsylvania,  and  the  statement  to  that  effect  in  the 
"  Autobiography  "  is  probably  based  on  information  derived 
by  Calhoun  from  his  father.  But  from  this  time  on  we  stand 
on  firmer  ground.5  About  the  middle  of  the  XVIII  cen- 
tury, there  are  authentic  records  of  the  presence  of  four 
brothers  Calhoun, — James,  Ezekiel,  William,  and  Patrick, —  in 
the  western  parts  of  Virginia.  And  they  were  there  as  set- 
tlers, taking  up  land  and  remaining  some  ten  years.  Their 
mother,6  too,  Catherine  by  name,  was  with  them  later,  if  not 
then,  and  a  sister,  Mary  Noble,  either  the  wife  or  the  widow  7 
of  John  Noble.  At  least  three  other  members  of  the  Calhoun 
family  are  also  mentioned :  one  George,  who  lived  in  the  Reed 

4  This  positively  fixes  the  year  of  his  birth  as  1727  or  early  in  1728, 
and  not  1723,  as  stated  by  Col.  Starke.    , 

5  An  admirable  sketch  of  "  The  Calhoun  Family  in  America  "  by  A.  S. 
Salley,  Jr.,  is  to  be  found  in  the  "  South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genea- 
logical Magazine,"  Vol.  VII   (1906),  pp.  81-98;  153-169.     It  is  based  on 
public  records,  newspaper  notices,  and  other  such  evidence  of  unquestion- 
able character.    I   have   used   it  largely,   and  with   entire   reliance.    The 
facts  following  in  the  text  in  regard  to  the  early  history  of  the  family 
are  based  on  it,  unless  other  authority  is  given. 

6  There  is  no  doubt  at  all  as  to  the  presence  in  America  of  this  one 
member  of  the  generation  preceding  that  of  the  four  brothers,  but  I  know 
of  no  evidence  tending  to  bear  out  Col.  Starke's  statement  that  her  hus- 
band's name  was  James  and  that  James  emigrated,  accompanied  by  two 
brothers,  as  well  as  by  his  own  immediate  family. 

7  Mr.  Salley  makes  her  out  a  widow,  while  a  letter  of  Calhoun,  printed 
in  the  "Gulf  States  Historical  Magazine,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  439-441,  speaks  of 
her  husband  as  having  removed  with  the  Calhoun  family  to  South  Carolina. 


PRELIMINARY  33 

Creek  region  in  1746,  while  Hugh  Calhoun  lived  in  1777  in 
South  Carolina,  near  the  other  members  of  the  family,  and 
described  himself  in  his  will,  executed  in  1792,  as  formerly 
of  "  Fawney  Co.  Tyrone,"  and  one  John  is  described  in  a 
death  notice  as  formerly  of  "  Bushfield,  L.  Derry."  8 

Patrick  Calhoun,  the  one  of  the  four  brothers  who  is  of 
special  interest  to  us  as  the  father  of  John  Caldwell  Calhoun, 
was  born  in  County  Donegal,  Ireland,  in  the  year  1727,  or  in 
1728,  as  has  just  been  shown.  He  was  the  youngest  of  the 
four  brothers  and  was  undoubtedly  a  minor  and  probably  a 
child  at  the  time  of  the  emigration.  Col.  Starke  writes  that, 
"owing  to  an  injury  in  childhood,"  he  had  had  only  six 
months  at  school  in  Ireland,  and  that  he  never  had  received 


Reproduced  by  permission  from  Mr.  A.  S.  Salley,  Jr.'s,  article  on  the 
Calhoun  family  mentioned  in  the  text. 


8  Mr.  Salley  is  my  authority  for  George  Calhoun,  "  The  Calhoun  Family," 
ut  supra,  Vol.  VII,  p.  81.  The  facts  as  to  Hugh  and  John  are  derived  from 
the  notice  of  Jameson's  "  Correspondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun "  in  the 
"  South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Magazine,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  45, 
134.  i35»  160,  186,  187.  Fawney  is  in  Ireland,  but  I  have  been  unable  to 
learn  where  Bushfield  was. 


34  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

any  more  school  education  in  this  country,  and  the  statement 
is  very  likely  true,  though  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been  made 
by  any  other  writer.  He  and  his  three  brothers  were  in  Vir- 
ginia in  November,  1746,  from  which  date  their  names  often 
appear  in  the  public  records.  Thus  Patrick  and  several  others 
were  at  that  date  appointed  to  lay  out  a  road ;  and  grants  of 
land  on  Reed  Creek  near  Wytheville,  in  what  is  now  Wythe 
County,  Virginia,  were  made  to  various  members  of  the  family. 
On  March  5,  1749,  a  tract  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-nine  acres 
on  the  waters  of  Reed  Creek,9  "  near  to  where  he  lives,"  was 
surveyed  for  Patrick  Calhoun.  This  was  close  to  the  time  of 
his  majority. 

There  is  evidence  that  the  members  of  the  family  were  not 
devoid  of  that  pugnacity  and  dogged  tendency  to  insist  upon 
the  rights  they  claimed,  even  when  of  little  actual  value,  which 
is  thought  by  some  to  characterize  their  race.  In  1746  the 
four  brothers  Calhoun  were  charged  by  one  James  Patton 
with  being  "  divulgers  of  false  news,"  and  were  ordered  to 
answer  at  the  next  court.  This  contest  seems  to  have  been 
easily  composed;  but  only  a  few  years  later,  in  1752,  James 
Patton  became  involved  in  a  bitter  controversy  with  James 
Calhoun.  This  suit  dragged  on  for  a  year  and  a  half,  and 
was  apparently  heard  more  than  once  by  the  same  jury,  de- 
spite their  wish  to  be  discharged.  There  was  at  least  one 
mandamus  obtained  in  the  matter  from  the  General  Court, 
and  finally  the  case  seems  to  have  been  submitted  to  arbitra- 
tion. The  action  was  for  slander,  the  plaintiff  asserting  that 
Calhoun  "  had  said  in  1750  that  Patton  made  over  all  his  es- 
tate to  his  children  to  defraud  his  creditors,  and  that  he  had 
no  title  to  the  lands  he  offered  for  sale  on  Roanoke  and  New 
Rivers." 

Either  in  this  suit  or  another  one  between  the  same  per- 
sons an  abstruse  legal  point  bitterly  contested  was  as  to  which 
party  should  pay  a  certain  fee  to  the  governor.  Patton  had 
contracted  to  deliver  to  Calhoun  two  patents  for  land  at  a 

'Calhoun  visited  this  region  in  1846  and  saw  the  identical  place  where 
his  father  had  lived  nearly  a  century  earlier,  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  706, 
707. 


PRELIMINARY  35 

time  when  no  fee  was  payable  to  the  governor  on  issuing  pat- 
ents, but  since  then  a  law  had  been  enacted  requiring  a  fee. 
Who  should  pay  this  new  charge?  The  point  was  evidently 
one  of  bitter  controversy  and  was  finally  settled,  possibly  with 
less  of  law  than  of  horse-sense  calculated  to  appease  the  con- 
testants by  an  order  that  each  should  pay  the  fee  for  one 
patent.  In  another  case  in  1752,  it  is  to  be  presumed  that 
this  same  James  Calhoun,  who  was  the  oldest  of  the  four 
brothers,  had  boldly  taken  the  law  into  his  own  hands,  for  the 
records  tell  us  that  on  November  20  of  that  year  he  was  "  bound 
to  keep  the  peace  towards  James  McCall." 

While  these  petty  contests  were  going  on  in  the  then  wilds 
of  what  is  now  Wythe  County,  Virginia,  events  of  far  greater 
moment  were  enacting  on  a  wider  stage.  The  early  moves  in 
the  final  contest  between  France  and  England  for  the  mastery 
of  the  New  World  were  made  at  this  time.  And,  as  has  hap- 
pened more  than  once  in  the  world's  history,  the  power  whose 
comparative  democracy  was  destined  to  succeed  in  the  end 
was  at  the  outstart  overwhelmed  with  disaster  by  its  rival. 
Braddock  met  with  his  crushing  defeat  near  Fort  Duquesne  on 

July  9,  1755. 

This  was  an  event  of  awful  import  to  the  settlers  on  the 
borders  of  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and  Virginia.  They  were 
at  once  exposed  to  the  inroads  of  the  French  and  Indians, 
and  many  soon  turned  their  thoughts  to  removal  further 
South.  In  this  same  year,  too,  Governor  Glenn  of  South 
Carolina  made  a  treaty  with  the  Indians  by  which  much  of  the 
upper  part  of  that  State  was  ceded  to  the  King  of  Great 
Britain.  Here  was  a  strong  inducement  to  settle  in  the  new 
region,  and  the  Calhouns  were  among  those  to  make  this 
move.  All  the  four  brothers,  —  James,  Ezekiel,  William,  and 
Patrick,  —  and  their  sister  Mary  Noble  and  mother  Catherine 
Calhoun  made  the  long  and  difficult  journey.  There  is  evi- 
dence that  in  their  migration  to  Carolina  they  passedby  the 

fe41i 


Waxhaws,  where  the  family  of  Andrew  Jackson 

and  one  writer  10  says  that  they  were  induced  to  fix  upon  the 

10  John  H.  Logan's  "  History  of  the  Upper  Country  of  South  Carolina," 
Vol.  I,  p.  150.    See  also  Col.  Starke's  "  Sketch,"  p.  66. 


36  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

site  they  actually  selected  for  their  home  in  South  Carolina 
by  the  description  of  its  loveliness  and  fertility  that  they  had 
heard  from  a  band  of  hunters  at  the  Waxhaws. 

Long  Cane  Creek  was  the  region  that  they  selected,  and  in 
a  few  years  it  came  to  be  known  as  "  The  Long  Canes  Settle- 
ment." Situated  in  what  was  originally  Granville  County  and 
later  the  district  of  Ninety-six,  it  is  now  included  in  Abbeville 
County,  some  eight  miles  from  the  town  of  Abbeville.  The 
settlement  was  very  new,  having  been  begun  only  in  1750,  and 
early  in  1756  the  whole  number  of  settlers  scarcely  exceeded 
twenty.11  John  C.  Calhoun  wrote  12  nearly  a  century  later 
that  the  family  arrived  in  February,  1756,  and  settled  in  a 
group  in  what  came  to  be  known  as  Calhoun's  Settlement,  at 
the  fork  of  two  streams  of  that  name,  not  far  from  where 
their  waters  empty  into  Little  River.  Patrick  Calhoun  se- 
lected either  at  the  time  of  settlement  or  later  a  tract  of  slightly 
rising  ground  on  the  north  side  of  the  South  Fork  of  Calhoun 
Creek,  not  far  from  its  union  with  the  North  Fork.  Long 
Cane  Creek,  from  which  the  settlement  took  its  name,  lay  a 
few  miles  to  the  eastward.13 

It  is  doubtless  hardly  an  exaggeration,  when  Col.  Starke 
writes  that,  as  the  Calhouns  neared  this  new  home,  "  they 
worked  their  way  along  wagon-roads  and  foot-trails  until  the 
compass  was  perhaps  their  only  guide."  The  following  from 
Calhoun's  just-quoted  letter  is  also  worthy  of  reproduction: — 
'  The  region  composing  the  District  was  in  a  virgin  state, 
new  and  beautiful,  without  underwood  and  all  the  fertile  por- 
tion covered  by  a  dense  cane-brake,  and  hence  the  name  of 
Long  Cane.  It  had  been  recently  got  from  the  Cherokees, 
and  the  settlement  was  more  than  sixteen  or  seventeen  miles 
from  the  boundary  between  them  and  the  whites.  The  re- 

11  Ramsay's  "  History  of  South  Carolina,"  Vol.  I,  p.  209.  Calhoun's  letter 
next  cited  says  there  were  only  two  settlers,  one  at  White  Hall  and  one 
at  Cambridge,  then  called  Ninety-six.  See  infra. 

"Letter  to  Charles  H.  Allen,  dated  at  Fort  Hill,  November  21,  1847, 
printed  in  "Gulf  States  Historical  Magazine,"  Vol.  I  (1902-03),  pp. 
439-41. 

13  Ibid.,  Col.  Starke's  "  Sketch,"  p.  68.  A  map  of  the  region  is  to  be 
found  in  Mills's  Atlas,  1820,  1825,  of  which  the.re  is  a  copy  in  the  Charles- 
ton Library  Society, 


PRELIMINARY  37 

gion  was  full  of  game,  and  among  them,  the  buffalo."  To 
this  Ramsay  adds  14  that  in  1750  buffalo,  deer,  bear,  and  wild 
turkeys  were  there  in  great  numbers,  as  well  as  beaver,  otter, 
musk-rat,  wolves,  panthers,  and  wild  cats. 

For  a  few  years  the  new  settlement  grew  fast,  for  it  was 
not  actually  involved  in  the  French  and  Indian  war,  which 
harried  the  borders  further  to  the  north.  But  the  reduction 
of  Fort  Duquesne  by  the  British  in  1758,  which  brought  peace 
to  the  North,  entailed  in  turn  upon  South  Carolina  the  misery 
of  a  war  with  the  Cherokees  and  stunted  the  growth  of  the 
Abbeville  region. 

The  horrors  of  Indian  warfare  lie  so  far  back  of  us  that 
it  is  to-day  hard  to  realize  them.  Often  as  they  have  been 
described  on  paper,  the  reality  no  doubt  beggared  all  attempts 
at  reproduction.  They  were  by  no  means  unknown  in  the 
upper  country  of  Carolina,  and  the  older  generation  of  Cal- 
houns  had  their  part  in  them.  The  early  biographer 15  of 
Calhoun,  indeed,  writes  that  they  had  been  driven  from  Vir- 
ginia by  attacks  of  the  Indians  and  that  "  in  the  hostile  encount- 
ers that  took  place  previous  to  their  removal,  Patrick  was  old 
enough  to  take  a  prominent  part."  It  was,  probably,  how- 
ever, in  South  Carolina  that  the  instance  occurred,  of  which 
the  "  Autobiography,"  as  well  as  the  record  of  other  writers, 
tells  us  in  which  an  Indian  distinguished  for  prowess  as  a  chief 
and  for  skill  with  the  rifle,  selected  Patrick  Calhoun  as  an  op- 
ponent, possibly  in  some  small  skirmish.  The  savage  took  to 
a  tree,  while  the  white  man  hid  behind  a  log,  and  then  fire- 
arms came  into  play.  Calhoun  succeeded  four  times  in  draw- 
ing his  opponent's  fire  by  raising  his  hat  on  a  stick  a  little  above 
the  edge  of  the  log,  and  finally  the  Indian  exposed  part  of  his 
person  in  an  effort  to  see  the  effect  of  a  shot.  Here  was  a 
capital  error,  for  Calhoun  at  once  shot  him  in  the  shoulder 
and  he  was  forced  to  fly.  The  accuracy  of  aim  of  the  Indian 
was  shown  by  four  bullet  holes  to  be  afterwards  seen  in  Cal- 
houn's  hat. 

One  instance  of  far  more  serious  import  occurred.     In  1760 

14  "History  of  South  Carolina,"  Vol.  II,  p.  598  (Appendix  No.  IX). 

15  John  S.  Jenkins's  "  Life  of  John  C.  Calhoun,"  p.  20. 


38  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

during  the  Cherokee  war  which  broke  out  after  the  reduction 
of  Fort  Duquesne,  the  borders  must  have  been  seriously  threat- 
ened, for  the  settlers  at  Long-Canes  decided  to  remove  all 
women  and  children  for  safety  to  Augusta,  Georgia.  The 
story  of  their  surprise  by  the  Indians  can  best  be  told  in  the 
words  of  Patrick  Calhoun  as  printed  in  the  South  Carolina 
Gazette  of  February  23,  1760. 16 

Mr.  Patrick  Calhoun,  one  of  the  unfortunate  Settlers  at  Long- 
Canes,  who  were  attacked  by  the  Cherokees  on  the  ist  Instant, 
as  they  were  removing  their  Wives,  Children,  and  best  Effects,  to 
Augusta  in  Georgia  for  Safety,  is  just  come  to  Town  and  informs 
us, '  That  the  whole  of  those  Settlers  might  be  about  250  souls,  55 
or  60  of  them  fighting  Men;  that  their  Loss  in  that  Affair 
amounted  to  50"  Persons,  Chiefly  Women  and  Children,  with  13 
loaded  Waggons  and  Carts ;  that  he  had  since  been  at  the  Place 
where  the  Action  happened,  in  order  to  bury  the  Dead,  and  found 
only  20  of  their  Bodies,  most  inhumanly  butchered;  that  the 
Indians  had  burnt  the  Woods  all  around,  but  had  left  the  Waggons 
and  Carts  there  empty  and  unhurt,  and  that  he  believes  all  the 
fighting  men  would  return  and  fortify  the  Long-Cane  Settlement, 
were  part  of  the  Rangers  so  stationed  as  to  give  them  some  Assist- 
ance and  Protection/ 

According  to  the  same  newspaper  of  an  earlier  date,  "  the 
whole  of  the  Long  Cane  settlers  to  the  number  of  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  souls  "  were  thus  flying  from  their  homes  and 
were  attacked  by  about  one  hundred  Cherokees  on  horseback, 
at  a  time  when  the  fugitives  were  getting  their  wagons  out  of 
a  boggy  place.  They  had  forty  gunmen,  but  unfortunately 
their  guns  were  in  the  wagons.  A  few  recovered  their  arms 
and  fought  the  Indians  for  half  an  hour,  but  were  then  obliged 

18  I  quote  from  Mr.  Salley's  "The  Calhoun  Family,"  ut  supra,  p.  85, 
86,  where  the  account  of  the  newspaper  (published  in  Charleston)  is  repro- 
duced. See  also  ibid.,  p.  85,  an  extract  from  the  same  newspaper  of  Feb- 
ruary 9,  1760,  from  which  portions  of  my  account  are  derived. 

17  This  number  does  not  seem  to  agree  with  that  mentioned  on  the 
stone  afterwards  erected  (see  infra)  by  Patrick  Calhoun  to  the  memory 
of  those  killed,  which  makes  the  number  out  to  have  been  twenty-three. 
The  numbers  were  likely  to  be  exaggerated  so  soon  after  the  event,  owing 
to  the  fact  that  the  savages  had  carried  some  into  captivity  and  that  others 
had  hidden  and  had  not  yet  been  able  to  return;  or  possibly  the  figures 
given  on  the  stone  may  refer  only  to  those  killed  and  buried  at  that 
particular  place,  while  others  were  killed  later  on  in  flight. 


STONE  ERECTED  BY  PATRICK  CALHOUN  TO  THE 
MEMORY  OF  His  MOTHER 

Vol.  L  p.  38 


PRELIMINARY  39 

to  fly.  The  bulk  of  the  fugitives  reached  Augusta  in  safety. 
Among  the  slain  were  James  Calhoun,18  the  eldest  of  the 
four  brothers  who  had  emigrated  from  Ireland,  and  Catherine 
Calhoun,  their  mother.  She  was  at  the  time  seventy-six  years 
of  age.  Her  son  Patrick  later  erected  in  memory  of  her  and 
of  the  others  killed  a  stone  that  still  exists,  on  which  is  an  in- 
scription that  reads  : 

"  Patk  Calhoun  Esq. 

In  Memory  of 
Mrs.  Cathrine  Calhoun 

Aged  76  Years 

who  With  22  Others  was  Here  Murdered  by  The  Indians  The 
First  Day  of  Feby.  1760." 


The  stone  marks,  of  course,  accurately  the  spot  of  the  am- 
bush and  is  in  a  little  valley  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  yards 
to  the  right  of  the  road  leading  from  Abbeville  to  Troy.  It 
is  about  twelve  miles  from  Abbeville  and  two  and  a  half  from 
Troy,  three  quarters  of  a  mile  beyond  Patterson's  Bridge  over 
Long  Cane  Creek.19 

Another  writer  20  I  have  often  quoted  adds  certain  details, 
but  unfortunately  without  giving  any  authority.  The  facts 
are,  however,  likely  enough.  After  the  massacre,  he  tells 
us,  many  children  were  found  wandering  in  the  woods,  and 
one  man  alone  discovered  nine.  It  is  well  established  that 
two,  if  not  three,  very  young  daughters  of  William  Calhoun 
were  carried  off  by  the  Indians.  One  of  these  was  held  in 
captivity  fourteen  years,  but  then  somehow  got  back  to  civ- 
ilization and  married  a  white  man.  The  other  was  never  heard 
of.  Another  niece  of  Patrick's,  Rebecca,  who  had  hidden  in 
the  cane-brake,  was  discovered  by  the  uncle  when  he  returned 
to  bury  the  dead.  She  afterward  became  the  wife  of  General 
Andrew  Pickens. 

The  settlers  probably  soon  returned  to  their  homes  but  were 

18  Letter  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  dated  Fort  Hill,  November  21,  1847,  printed 
in  "Gulf  States  Historical  Magazine,"  Vol.  I  (1902-03),  pp.  439-41. 

18  My  authority  here,  as  elsewhere  in  regard  to  the  early  years  of  the 
Calhouns,  is  the  article  by  A.  S.  Salley,  Jr.,  referred  to  above. 

20  Col.  W.  Pinkney  Starke,  as  already  cited.  '  Mr.  Salley  is  my  authority 
as  to  the  daughters  of  William  Calhoun. 


40  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

not  yet  quite  free  from  Indian  alarms.  As  late  as  June,  1764, 
more  than  a  year  after  the  treaty  of  peace  that  closed  the 
French  and  Indian  war,  the  Assembly  voted  pay  for  a  com- 
pany of  "  rangers  "  for  six  months  to  protect  the  Long  Canes 
settlement  against  the  Indians.  It  consisted  of  a  commission 
officer,  a  sergeant,  and  twenty  men.  Patrick  Calhoun,  who 
was  to  serve  without  pay,  was  appointed  the  captain. 

This  period  ended,  it  seems,  all  serious  difficulties  with  In- 
dians; but  the  savages  were  not  the  only  trouble  of  the  South 
Carolina  frontier.  There  was  a  lamentable  absence  of  gov- 
ernmental authority  in  the  upper  country  during  all  its  early 
years,  and  no  court  existed  nearer  than  Charles  Town.  It 
was  hence  well-nigh  impossible  to  try  offenders  by  legal  pro- 
cess. For  years  the  settlers  on  the  border  sought  in  vain  for 
relief.  In  1768  a  petition,  in  which  members  of  the  Calhoun 
family  joined,  prayed  for  the  rights  of  British  subjects  and 
for  the  establishment  of  courts.  They  complained,  moreover, 
that  they  were  two  hundred  miles  from  the  parish  church,  and 
that  when  they  travelled  all  this  distance  in  order  to  vote  they 
were  refused  except  in  Prince  William's  Parish.  lt  There 
were  people  on  the  frontier,"  said  their  petition,  "  that  had 
never  seen  a  school  or  heard  a  sermon." 

Recommendations  were  made  in  the  legislature,  in  answer 
to  the  petition,  that  the  back  country  be  laid  out  in  parishes ; 
but  nothing  came  of  these  suggestions,  and  affairs  grew  to  be 
intolerable.  During  their  long  border  wars,  the  manners  of 
the  people  had  become  much  corrupted,  and  stealing, —  espe- 
cially horse-stealing,  that  favorite  form  of  border-land  rob- 
bery,—  had  grown  to  be  sadly  frequent.  When  a  thief  was 
caught,  moreover,  there  was  no  method  for  a  legal  trial,  ex- 
cept by  going  down  to  Charles  Town,  some  two  hundred  miles 
away.  Many  of  the  justices  of  the  peace  even, —  the  only 
legal  authority  in  the  region, —  are  said  to  have  been  scoun- 
drels and  to  have  sided  with  the  thieves. 

All  efforts  by  petition  and  other  legal  means  to  obtain  re- 
lief from  this  state  of  affairs  having  failed,  the  inhabitants 
did  what  has  so  often  been  done  in  new  countries  among  a 
people  having  the  instinct  of  self-government:  they  estab- 


PRELIMINARY  41 

lished  a  governmental  system  entirely  apart  from  that  which 
bore  the  sanction  of  law.  Some  of  the  best  inhabitants  united 
to  create  what  was  called  the  "  Regulation."  In  plain  words, 
they  introduced  a  form  of  lynch  law,  and  in  proper  cases 
sentenced  thieves  to  receive  a  number  of  stripes  on  their  back, 
coupling  this  often  with  a  well-understood  advice  to  leave. 
The  thieves,  on  their  part,  quickly  made  common  cause  and 
offered  resistance.  Soon  the  majority  of  inhabitants  took  sides 
with  one  or  the  other  of  these  parties,  the  Regulators  alleg- 
ing as  their  justification  absolute  necessity  and  the  substan- 
tial justice  of  their  proceedings,  while  the  others  stood  upon 
the  right  of  a  British  subject  to  be  regularly  tried  by  jury. 

The  contest  grew  so  serious  that  the  Governor  appointed 
one  Scovil  to  settle  it  under  a  commission  that  conferred  high 
authority  upon  him.  He  seems  to  have  been  quite  unfit  for 
his  office,  for  he  soon  called  the  Regulators  to  answer  for 
their  conduct  and  sent  two  of  them  to  Charles  Town  for  trial. 
The  two  parties  were  for  some  time  drawn  up  against  each 
other  almost  in  hostile  array,  but  entered  into  an  agreement, 
or  treaty,  by  which  both  left  their  rights  to  the  Governor  for 
settlement.  This  finally  resulted  in  the  Circuit  Court  Act  of 
1769,  under  which  various  parts  of  the  State,  and  Ninety-six 
among  others,  secured  courts  of  justice  within  their  limits,  and 
numerous  thieves  were  brought  to  trial.  The  district  of 
Ninety-six,  where  the  Calhouns  lived,  was  established  in  1768, 
possibly  as  a  result  of  this  contest. 

The  State  then  enjoyed  peace  for  a  few  years,  but  the  ani- 
mosities that  had  been  engendered  continued  to  rankle,  and 
the  parties  in  the  back  country  were  thenceforth  known  as 
Regulators  and  Scovilites.  These  names,  indeed,  continued 
down  to  the  Revolution,  when  the  Regulators  became  Whigs 
and  the  Scovilites  Tories. 

One  very  serious  trouble  of  the  situation  then  and  later  was 
the  heterogeneous  population  impregnated  with  the  strong  an- 
tipathies brought  over  from  the  old  country.  The  Scotch  are 
said  to  have  been  generally  loyal,  while  the  pure  Irish  were 
no  more  fond  of  English  rule  in  Carolina  than  they  had  been 
in  their  ancient  home.  There  were  Quakers,  too,  with  their 


42  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

peculiar  beliefs  and  a  method  of  life  so  different  from  that  of 
ordinary  men  that  they  lived  largely  to  themselves;  while  a 
sprinkling  of  French,  Germans,  and  Swiss  served  still  further 
to  complicate  the  situation. 

It  was  a  most  dangerous  population  in  which  to  light  the 
flames  of  civil  war,  and  probably  the  Revolution  bore  more 
heavily  upon  the  up-country  of  Carolina  than  upon  any  other 
part  of  what  was  soon  to  be  known  as  the  United  States.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of  a  more  terrible  internecine 
war.  Ramsay  wrote  that  "  The  single  district  of  Ninety-six 
has  been  computed  by  well-informed  persons  residing  therein 
to  contain  within  its  limits  fourteen  hundred  widows  and 
orphans  made  by  the  war."  21 

Harrowing  tales  were  told  of  bloody  murders  committed 
by  the  Tories,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  Whigs  were 
in  many  instances  open  to  the  like  charge.  One  Whig  family 
of  interest  to  us,  and  a  daughter  of  which  was  destined  to  be 
the  mother  of  John  Caldwell  Calhoun,  may  serve  to  typify 
the  stormy  days  of  the  Revolution  in  upper  South  Carolina. 
Martha  Caldwell  had  four  brothers  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war. 
Of  these,  one  fell  at  the  battle  of  the  Cowpens,  it  is  said,  with 
thirty  sabre  wounds  upon  his  body ;  another  was  taken  prisoner 
by  the  English  and  confined  in  a  dungeon  at  St.  Augustine  for 
nine  months;  and  a  third,  Major  John  Caldwell,  was  mur- 
dered in  cold  blood  by  the  Tories  in  his  own  yard,  after  they 
had  destroyed  his  house  by  fire.22 

The  war  touched  Ninety-six  in  a  larger  way,  too.     At  the 

21  Ramsay's  "  History  of  South  Carolina "  (published  in  1808,  and  ap- 
parently written  in  1798  and  later),  Vol.  I,  p.  452.    Ibid.,  pp.  210-217; 
423-429.    II,  126,  127 ;  Simms's  "  South  Carolina,"  pp.  120-124,  142-147, 
225,  326-30,  351 ;  "  Sketch  of  Judiciary  in  South  Carolina,"  contained  in  J. 
B.  O'Neall's  "  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  x,  xi ;  upon 
which  authorities  my  statements  for  this  whole  period  are  based.    See 
also  "  Sectionalism  and  Representation  in  South  Carolina  "  by  William  A. 
Schafer,  contained  in  "Annual  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Asso- 
ciation" for  1900,  Vol.  I,  pp.  335-337- 

22  Calhoun's  "  Autobiography."    "  The  Annals  of  Newberry,"  by  J.  B. 
O'Neal],  pp.  244,  245.    The  statement  as  to  the  brother  confined  at  St. 
Augustine  has  been  doubted  in  Gustavus  M.  Pinckney's  "  Life  of  Calhoun," 
p.  13 ;  but  seems  to  be  fairly  well  established  by  an  article  in  the  "  South 
Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Magazine,"  Vol.  V  (1904),  pp.  261, 
262. 


PRELIMINARY 


43 


time  of  the  effort  to  capture  Charlestown  in  1776,  by  the  com- 
bined army  and  navy  of  the  British,  the  Tories  and  Indians 
had  arranged  for  an  attack  upon  the  western  settlements,  but 
the  defeat  of  the  effort  upon  the  capital  put  an  end  to  this 
plan,  and  for  four  years  the  West  enjoyed  quiet.  But  when 
Charlestown  fell  in  1780,  the  circumstances  were  reversed,  and 
the  "  king's  friends,"  as  the  Tories  called  themselves,  had  the 
upper  hand.  The  British,  indeed,  maintained  a  post  in  Ninety- 
six  for  thirteen  months,  and  during  this  period,  according  to 
Ramsay,  the  country  "  was  filled  with  rapine,  violence,  and 
murder."  In  1781,  Greene  marched  with  his  main  army  to 
reduce  this  station  and  had  nearly  succeeded,  when  a  relief 
party  arrived  and  forced  him  to  abandon  the  effort. 

There  is  no  evidence,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  Patrick  Cal- 
houn  had  any  direct  share  in  these  movements  of  the  War  of 
the  Revolution,  though  other  members  of  the  family  served 
for  long  periods  in  the  army.  There  will  be  occasion  later  to 
refer  to  a  nephew  of  Patrick,  Jo>hn_^ wing  Calhoun,23  who 
went  to  Charlestown  early  in  the  war  to  study  TawT  but  en- 
listed instead, —  in  August,  1776, —  as  a  private  in  Colonel 
Charles  Drayton's  Volunteer  Company,  and  was  not  admitted 
to  the  bar  until  1783.  He  was  later  United  States  Senator 
from  South  Carolina  and  was  the  father  of  a  daughter  who 
proved  of  immense  importance  in  the  life  of  John  Caldwell 
Calhoun. 

With  the  treaty  of  1793,  which  closed  the  Revolution,  came 
at  last  real  peace  to  Ninety-six.  The  troubles  of  its  earlier 
days  are  summed  up  as  follows  by  Ramsay : 

From  the  first  settlement  of  the  upper  country  till  the  peace 
of  1783,  a  succession  of  disasters  had  stunted  its  growth.  The 
years  1756,  1757  and  1758  were  attended  with  no  uncommon 
calamity.  The  same  rrfay  be  said  of  the  years  1770  and  1775, 
but  with  these  exceptions,  the  upper  country  was  for  nearly 
twenty  years  of  the  first  thirty  of  its  existence  kept  in  a  con- 
stant state  of  disturbance  either  by  the  Indians  or  Tories  and 

23  "  South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Magazine,"  Vol.  I,  pp. 
134,  135,  1 86,  187.  O'Neall's  "  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,"  Vol.  II, 
P-  599- 


44  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  contentions  between  Regulators  and  Scovilites.     Under  all 
these  disadvantages,  it  grew  astonishingly. 

Patrick  Calhoun  must  have  shared  in  all  its  ups  and  downs, 
and  it  will  be  seen  later  that  his  bold  and  determined  character 
bore  deep  traces  of  the  life  of  trial  he  had  long  lived. 

It  is  evident  that  he  became  prosperous  in  a  worldly  sense. 
Six  conveyances  of  land  to  him  are  on  record  24  between  1763 
and  1768,  three  of  them  on  Long  Cane  Creek  and  at  least  one 
on  Calhoun  Creek,  and  the  United  States  Census  of  I79<D25 
tells  us  that  he  had  thirty-one  slaves,  a  number  exceeded  by 
only  three  and  approached  by  but  few  settlers  in  the  same  far- 
off  outlying  district.  He  was  a  surveyor  by  occupation,  and 
is  said 2G  to  have  been  an  eminent  one.  His  brother  William 
kept  a  store  at  which  were  sold  corn,  rye,  wheat,  flour,  pork, 
and  liquors,  and  Patrick's  name  appears  quite  occasionally  in 
this  brother's  journal  27  as  a  purchaser  of  fairly  liberal  quanti- 
ties of  these  latter  beverages  as  well  as  of  other  more  neces- 
sary solid  provisions. 

On  September  10,  1766,  he  had  the  misfortune  to  lose  his 
wife.  Her  maiden  name  was  JLaiiejCi^iighead,  and  she  was 
the  daughter  of  Rev.  Alexander  Craighead  of  Rocky  River, 
North  Carolina.  It  is  said 28  that  they  were  already  betrothed 
at  the  time  of  the  Indian  ambush  in  February,  1760.  Nothing 
further  is  known  about  her  except  what  the  South  Carolina 
Gazette  of  Monday,  October  13,  1766,  recordsrthat  on  Sep- 
tember 10,  on  a  miscarriage  of  twins  there  died  at  Long  Canes 
11  in  the  twenty-fourth  29  year  of  her  age  one  of  the  most  pious 

24  Review  of  "  Calhoun's  Correspondence  "  by  Jameson,  in  the  "  South 
Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Magazine,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  158-163. 

25  "  Heads  of  Families  at  the  First  Census  of  the  United  States  taken 
in  the  year  1790,  South  Carolina."     Published  by  the  U.  S.  Government  in 
1908. 

2«O'Neall's  "Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,"  Vol.  II,  p.  283;  also 
Starke's  "  Sketch,"  pp.  66,  72. 

27  Published  by  Mr.  A.  S.  Salley,  Jr.,  in  "  Publications  Southern  History 
Association,"  Vol.  VIII   (1904),  pp.  179-195. 

28  "History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  South  Carolina,"  by  George 
Howe,  Vol.  I,  p.  331. 

29  This  age  renders  it  impossible  that  Patrick's  first  marriage  should 
have  occurred,  as  Col.  Starke  ("Sketch,"  p.  66)   says  it  did,  during  the 
residence  of  the  Calhouns  in  Virginia.    They  had  left  there  in  1756,  if  not 


PRELIMINARY  45 

and  accomplished  young  women  in  these  parts,  in  the  person 
of  Mrs.  Calhoun,  the  wife  of  Patrick  Calhoun,  Esq.  and  daugh- 
ter of  Rev.  Alexander  Craighead."  It  is  evident  that  the 
twins  did  not  survive.  At  a  subsequent  date,  which  has  not 
been  fixed,  gatrick^iCalhoun  married 30  Martha  Caldwell,  who 
was  born  in  Charlotte  County,  Virginia,  but  was  a  resident  of 
what  is  now  Newberry  County,  South  Carolina.  The  Cald- 
wells  are  said  31  to  have  been  Huguenots  and  to  have  fled  from 
France,  some  to  Ireland  and  some  to  Scotland,  at  the  time  of 
the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes.  The  branch  to  which 
Mrs.  Calhoun  belonged  was  undoubtedly  Irish.32  She  and 
Patrick  Calhoun  had  the  following  five  children :  James,  Cath- 
erine, William,  John  Caldwell,  and  Patrick. 

Patrick  Calhoun  was  by  this  time  not  only  a  man  of  some 
property  but  of  prominence  as  well.  He  was  elected  in  1769 
to  the  Commons'  House  of  Assembly  of  South  Carolina  from 
Prince  William's  Parish  at  a  time  when  no  representative  from 
the  Up-Country  had  yet  sat  in  the  legislative  body  of  the  State. 
He  was,  moreover,  again  elected  in  1775,  in  the  early  days  of 
the  Revolutionary  movement,  to  the  First  Provincial  Congress 
as  well  as  to  the  Second.  This  body  adopted  a  constitution 
for  the  State  of  South  Carolina  and  resolved  itself  into  a  Gen- 
eral Assembly.  He  then  continued  to  serve  in  almost  every 
General  Assembly  until  his  death  in  1796  and  was  a  member 
of  the  Senate  at  the  last  session  preceding  that  date.  He  was 
also  a  Justice  of  the  Peace  for  Granville  County  and  later  for 

1755.  The  quotation  in  the  text  is  from  the  already  cited  review  of 
Jameson's  "  Calhoun  Correspondence "  in  the  "  South  Carolina  Historical 
&c.  Magazine,"  pp.  248,  249. 

30  There  is  possibly  some  evidence  that  Patrick  Calhoun  was  married 
three  times,  and  that  Martha  Caldwell  was  the  third  wife.  The  already 
mentioned  diary  kept  by  William  Calhoun,  brother  of  Patrick  ("  Publica- 
tions of  the  Southern  History  Association,"  Vol.  VIII  (1904),  pp.  I74-I°5). 
records  (p.  193)  the  marriage  of  Patrick  Calhoun  and  Sarah  McKinly  on 
'February  26,  1767.  I  do  not  see  what  other  Patrick  this  can  well  have 
been.  Ezekiel  the  immigrant  had  a  second  son,  Patrick,  but  he  was 
necessarily  very  young  in  1767,  as  his  elder  brother,  John  Ewing,  is 
stated  to  have  been  born  "  about  1750." 

31 J.  B.  O'Neall's  "Annals  of  Newberry,"  p.  242.  The  family  name  cer- 
tainly bears  no  evidence  of  its  alleged  French  extraction. 

32Calhoun's  "Autobiography."  Starke  writes  that  the  Caldwells  were 
Lowlanders  from  the  Frith  of  Solway. 


46  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Ninety-six  District,  and  was  elected  judge  of  the  County  Court 
for  Abbeville  County,  Ninety-six  District,  in  I79I.33 

His  environment  (to  use  the  pet  word  of  modern  days)  was 
one  likely  to  develop  character  in  a  man  who  had  any  of  the 
raw  material  thereof  in  his  make-up  and  we  need  not  wonder 
at  being  told  that  the  effect  of  his  mode  of  life  "  upon  a  mind 
naturally  strong  and  inquisitive  was  to  create  a  certain  degree 
of  contempt  for  the  forms  of  civilized  life,  and  for  all  that 
was  merely  conventional  in  society."  He  claimed  all  the  rights 
which  nature  and  reason  seemed  to  establish,  and  he  acknowl- 
edged no  obligation  which  was  not  supported  by  the  like  sanc- 
tions. It  was  under  this  conviction  that,  upon  one  occasion, 
he  and  his  neighbors  went  down  within  twenty-three  miles  of 
Charlestown,  armed  with  rifles,  to  exercise  a  right  of  suf- 
frage which  had  been  disputed :  a  contest  which  ended  in  elect- 
ing him  to  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  in  which  body  he 
served  for  thirty  years.  Relying  upon  virtue,  reason,  and 
courage  as  all  that  constituted  the  true  moral  strength  of  man, 
he  attached  too  little  importance  to  mere  information,  and 
never  feared  to  encounter  an  adversary  who,  in  that  respect, 
had  the  advantage  over  him :  a  confidence  which  many  of  the 
events  of  his  life  seemed  to  justify.  Indeed,  he  once  appeared 
as  his  own  advocate  in  a  case  in  Virginia,  in  which  he  re- 
covered a  tract  of  land  in  despite  of  the  regularly-trained  dis- 
putants who  sought  to  embarrass  and  defeat  him.  He  op- 
posed the  Federal  Constitution,  because,  as  he  said,  it  per- 
mitted other  people  than  those  of  South  Carolina  to  tax  the 
people  of  South  Carolina,  and  thus  allowed  taxation  with- 
out representation,  which  was  a  violation  of  the  fundamental 
principle  of  the  Revolutionary  struggle.34 

ss  I  follow  Mr.  Salley.  The  "Autobiography"  differs  slightly.  The 
writer  of  the  review  of  Jameson's  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  ut  supra, 
p.  160,  says  that  from  the  time  of  his  first  election  in  1769  he  was  "con- 
stantly in  the  House,  and  the  proceedings  of  the  House  show  he  was  one 
of  the  ablest  men  in  that  body.  He  was  a  ready  debater,  and  his  words 
were  well  chosen  and  strong." 

8* "  Autobiography,"  p.  4.  In  1786,  he  opposed  the  bill  to  authorize 
Congress  to  regulate  the  trade  of  the  United  States  and  moved  an  amend- 
ment to  require  the  consent  of  eleven  States  (instead  of  nine,  as  was 
proposed)  to  any  such  law,  but  the  amendment  was  at  once  lost  and  nine 
carried  almost  unanimously.  The  Charleston  "  Morning  Post  and  Daily 
Advertiser,"  February  9,  1786. 


PRELIMINARY  47 

One  other  story  should  be  told  here  as  to  Patrick  Calhoun, 
which  may  serve  to  illustrate  his  dislike  of  lawyers  and  possi- 
bly thus  explain  why  he  undertook  the  conduct  of  his  own 
case.  O'Neall  writes35  that  once  in  the  Legislature  of  the 
colony  during  a  debate  upon  some  law  to  give  a  reward  of  so 
many  shillings  for  a  wolf's  scalp,  Patrick  Calhoun  said  that 
he  would  much  rather  "  gie  a  poond  for  a  lawyer's  scalp." 
He  died  on  February  15,  1796,  as  is  learned  from  The  City 
Gazette  or  the  Daily  Advertiser  of  Charleston  of  March  7, 
1 796.36  It  contains  the  following  details : 

Died  at  his  seat  in  Abbeville  county  the  hon.  Patrick  Calhoun 
esq.  in  the  6Qth  year  of  his  age.  He  had  served  as  a  member 
of  the  Legislature  in  this  State  for  many  years ;  was  the  first 
person  who  ever  acted  in  that  capacity  from  that  part  of  the 
State  in  which  he  resided;  and  was  a  member  of  the  Senate  at 
its  last  session.  During  the  past  summer  he  was  seized  with  a 
lingering  fever,  which  much  enfeebled  his  constitution.  On  his 
return  from  Columbia  he  was  seized  with  a  bleeding  at  the 
nose,  which  exhausted  him  gradually  until  his  life  came  to  a 
close.  He  was  a  friend  to  virtue  and  piety ;  and  a  foe  to  vice  in 
every  form. 

Col.  Starke  is  doubtless  fully  justified  in  speaking  of  him  as 
"  the  pioneer  and  patriarch  of  Abbeville." 

85 J.  B.  O'Neall's  "Annals  of  Newberry,"  p.  249.    I  do  not  understand 
why  so  broad  a  Scotch  accent  is  attributed  to  Patrick  Calhoun. 
36  Quoted  in  Mr.  Salley's  article,  ut  ante,  Vol.  VII,  p.  90. 


CHAPTER  II 

EARLY    YEARS 

Boyhood  —  Schooling  —  Youthful  Pursuits  and  Influences 
—  Conditions,  Social  and  Political,  in  South  Carolina  — 
Slavery. 

JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN,  the  third  son  and  fourth  child 
of  Patrick  Calhoun  and  Martha  Caldwell,  was  born  at  the 
Long  Canes  settlement,  in  what  was  then  the  District  of  Ninety- 
six,  on  March  17,  1782,  and  was,  therefore,  at  the  date  of  his 
father's  death  on  February  15,  1796,  within  a  few  days  of  thir- 
teen years  and  eleven  months  of  age.  He  was  hence  quite 
old  enough  to  retain  many  memories  of  his  father  and  to  have 
had  his  character  to  a  considerable  extent  moulded  by  him. 
Indeed,  he  himself  wrote  that  among  his  earliest  recollections 
was  one  of  a  conversation  when  he  was  nine  years  of  age, 
in  which  his  father  maintained  that  government  to  be  best 
which  "  allowed  the  largest  amount  of  individual  liberty, 
compatible  with  social  order  and  tranquillity,  and  insisted  that 
the  improvements  in  political  science  would  be  found  to  con- 
sist in  throwing  off  many  of  the  restraints  then  imposed  by 
law  and  deemed  to  be  necessary  to  an  organized  society/' 1 
The  boy  had  been  but  about  six  years  of  age  at  the  time  when 
the  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution  was  opposed  by  his 
father  and  the  general  opinion  throughout  their  part  of  South 
Carolina  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  had  not  even  any  recollec- 
tion of  the  event. 

His  boyhood  was  probably  like  that  of  millions  of  other 
boys,  and  no  hint  reaches  us  of  marked  precocity.  Indeed, 
with  the  one  exception  just  mentioned  of  his  own  recollection 
of  his  early  years,  nothing  of  any  moment  has  survived  with 

1 "  Autobiography,"  p.  5, 

48 


EARLY  YEARS  49 

certainty  other  than  a  rather  abortive  attempt  at  schooling  when 
he  was  in  his  fourteenth  year. 

The  earliest  glimpse  we  have  of  young  Calhoun  is  in  1794, 
when  the  settlers  in  the  region  were  apparently  seeking  a  Pres- 
byterian minister.  One  Moses  Waddel,  then  a  young  divine 
and  later  widely  known  as  the  most  successful  of  Southern 
schoolmasters,  was  at  that  time  probably  an  applicant  for  the 
place  and  stayed  in  the  Calhoun  house.  He  described  in  later 
years  "  that  evening's  hospitable  entertainment  around  the  wide, 
old-fashioned  chimney,  the  sire  in  one  corner,  the  fair  old  ma- 
tron in  the  other,  and  beside  her  an  interesting  daughter." 
And  goes  on  to  say : 

After  some  time  a  door  was  opened,  and  a  youthful  head, 
with  very  disheveled  locks  and  strong  features,  peeped  in,  but 
was  instantly  withdrawn.  That  strong- featured  lad  of  twelve 
years  with  disheveled  head,  was  John  C.  Calhoun.2 

In  about  a  year,  Waddel  married  the  "  interesting  daughter  " 
in  question,  Catherine  Calhoun,  and  it  will  be  seen  shortly 
that  he  came  some  years  later  to  be  an  important  element  in 
the  training  of  his  young  brother-in-law. 

Schools  had  hardly  any  regular  existence  in  upper  South 
Carolina  at  that  date  and  even  when  present  were  doubtless 
most  primitive.  The  "  Autobiography "  tells  us  that  there 
was  not  an  "  academy  "  in  the  section,  and  the  nearest  one 
was  kept  by  Mr.  Waddel  in  Columbia  County,  Georgia,  some 
fifty  miles  away.  Starke  adds  to  this  that  occasionally  an 
"  old  Field  school," —  meaning  perhaps  simply  a  school  opened 
for  a  time  in  some  shanty  erected  in  one  of  those  abandoned 
clearings  which  seem  often  to  be  known  as  "  old  fields  "  in  a 
new  country, —  was  opened  for  a  few  months  by  some  itiner- 
ant teacher  capable  of  instructing  children  in  the  rudiments. 
He  was  himself  old  enough  to  remember  one  of  these  in  the 
Calhoun  neighborhood,  consisting  of  a  log  hut  with  rude  ap- 
pliances. "  In  the  year  1794,"  the  same  writer  goes  on,  there 
was  a  school-house  "  at  Brewer's,  half  way  between  Mr.  Cal- 

2  "History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  South  Carolina,"  by  George 
Howe,  Vol.  I,  p.  331.  See  also  Starke's  "  Life,"  p.  71. 


50  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

houn's  and  Little  River,  and  a  tradition  existed  that  John 
Caldwell  went  to  school  there  for  a  few  months  when  quite 
young." 

This  tradition  is  possibly  borne  out  by  the  "  Autobiography," 
which  speaks  of  Calhoun's  early  tuition  as  having  been  "  very 
imperfect,  and  confined  to  reading,  writing,  and  arithmetic  in 
an  ordinary  country  school."  With  this  exception  the  first 
regular  instruction  he  had  was  during  a  short  period  at  the 
above-mentioned  academy  of  his  brother-in-law,  Moses  Wad- 
del,  probably  from  about  the  end  of  1795  to  early  in  1796, 
when  he  was  nearing  fourteen.  But  destiny  seemed  determined 
to  close  to  him  the  avenue  of  education,  for  his  father  died 
in  February,  1796,  and  shortly  after  that  his  sister,  Mrs.  Wad- 
del,  died,  and  the  academy  was  for  the  time  being  discontinued. 
Young  Calhoun  remained  for  a  time  with  his  brother-in-law  — 
he  passed  there  in  all  about  fourteen  weeks  —  but  with  what 
object  is  not  very  clear.  Waddel  was  away  from  home  most 
of  the  time  upon  his  clerical  duties,  and  the  boy  was  apparently 
much  alone  and  without  any  white  companion. 

Inborn  tendencies,  however,  had  their  way.  Waddel  main- 
tained in  his  home  some  sort  of  circulating  library,  and  this 
attracted  young  Calhoun's  attention.  History  in  particular 
became  his  delight,  and  so  deeply  was  he  interested  in  this  his 
first  draught  upon  the  stored  knowledge  of  the  past  that,  to 
quote  the  authoritative  "  Autobiography  " : 

...  In  a  short  time  he  read  the  whole  of  the  small  stock  of 
historical  works  contained  in  the  library,  consisting  of  Rollings 
Ancient  History,  Robertson's  Charles  V.,  his  South  America,  and 
Voltaire's  Charles  XII.  After  despatching  these  with  eagerness, 
he  turned  with  like  eagerness  to  Cook's  voyages  (the  large  edi- 
tion), a  small  volume  of  essays  by  Brown,  and  Locke  on  the 
Understanding,  which  he  read  as  far  as  the  chapter  on  Infinity. 
All  this  was  the  work  of  but  fourteen  weeks. 

So  closely  did  he  apply  himself  that  his  eyes  began  to  fail 
and  his  health  to  give  way.  Soon  his  mother,  informed  of 
this  by  Waddel,  sent  for  her  son  to  come  home,  and  there 
the  open  air  and  exercise  repaired  the  boy's  plastic  frame. 


EARLY  YEARS  51 

The  home  region  was  doubtless  still  full  of  game,  and  he  ac- 
quired a  fondness  for  hunting,  fishing,  and  other  country 
sports.  Four  years  were  passed  away  in  these  pursuits  and 
in  attending  to  the  farm,  during  his  brothers'  absence,  to  the 
entire  neglect  of  education  as  such.  But  the  exercise  and 
rural  sports  helped  to  endow  him  with  some  of  the  vigor  he 
was  destined  to  need  in  his  great  career,  and  he  soon  acquired 
a  fondness  for  agriculture, —  a  love  that  never  left  him.3 

During  these  four  years  at  home,  young  Calhoun  waTrap- 
idly  drifting  into  the  position  of  director  of  the  family  farm. 
The  two  older  brothers,  William  and  James, —  probably  at  the 
instigation  of  "  the  managing  mother,  a  canny  Scotchwoman," 
as  Col.  Starke  writes, —  were  "  sent  off,"  the  one  to  Charles- 
ton and  the  other  to  Augusta,  where  they  obtained  employ- 
ment as  clerks,  and  the  direction  of  the  farm  fell  by  degrees 
intp  the  hands  of  John  Caldwell.  Col.  Starke  tells  us,  too,  in 
part  on  the  authority  of  a  relative,  James  Edward  Calhoun,4 
that  he  proved  a  very  successful  manager,  making  good  crops 
whenever  it  was  possible.  The  evidence  does  not  exist  that 
would  enable  one  to  go  far  into  this  point,  so  it  will  possibly 
be  best  simply  to  assume  that  he  was  careful  and  diligent,  at- 
taining success  when  it  could  be  attained. 

Leaving  him,  then,  at  his  agricultural  work,  before  coming 
to  the  turning  point  of  his  early  life,  some  effort  must  be  made 
to  describe  the  home  life  and  influences  under  which  he  lived 
until  past  eighteen  years  of  age.  These  were  the  sources  from 
which  he  received  the  bulk  of  the  training  that  constituted  al- 
most his  only  education  in  the  world  down  to  that  time. 

The  Calhoun  settlement  lay  in  that  part  of  South  Carolina 
which  is  to-day  known  as  the  Piedmont  region  and  constitutes 

3  The  "  Autobiography "  is  my  authority  for  all  statements  relating  to 
this  period  of  Calhoun's  life,  except  when  some  other  is  given. 

4  James   Edward   Calhoun  was   a   son   of   Calhoun's  first  cousin,   John 
Ewing  Calhoun,  and  grandson  of  Ezekiel,  a  brother  of  Patrick.    He  was 
hence  a  brother  of  Calhoun's  wife.    He  lived  to  "not  far  from  a  hun- 
dred years  of  age,"  and  was  well  known  to  Col.  Starke.     I  have  in  the 
text  softened  the  latter's  statements,  which  verbatim  are  that  "when  he 
(John  C.  Calhoun)   took  charge  of  his  brother's  property,  he  made  the 
largest  crop  ever  made  and  saved  him  from  bankruptcy,"  and  he  quotes 
James   Edward   Calhoun  as   stating  that  "under  whatever  overseer,  he 
always  made  fine  crops." 


52  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  foot-hills  of  the  Appalachian  chain  of  mountains.  Dis- 
tant about  two  hundred  miles  northwestwardly  from  Charles- 
ton, it  has  an  elevation  of  roughly  five  hundred  feet  above  sea- 
level.  The  country  was,  for  the  greater  part,  prairie,  but 
gently  undulating;  the  soil  a  rich  black  loam,  and  the  whole 
district  well  watered  by  streams  that  find  their  way  by  the 
Savannah  River  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean.  The  gentle,  soft 
beauty  of  the  landscape  was  then,  as  now,  most  pleasing  to 
the  eye,  and  the  region  admirably  adapted  to  agriculture. 
Further  to  the  north  lay  the  southern  limit  of  the  Appalachian 
chain  of  mountains,  whose  lofty  summits  here  at  last,  after 
their  long  continental  course,  come  down  gradually  to  the  level 
of  the  flat  coastal  plains. 

The  whole  district  was  most  primitive  at  about  the  end 
of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  settlers  must  have  been  but 
scattering,  and  the  whole  life  full  of  the  rudeness  of  the  fron- 
tier. The  houses  were  probably  nearly  all  built  of  logs.  Col. 
Starke,  who  knew  the  Calhoun  one  well  from  having  repeat- 
edly slept  there  in  early  childhood,  writes  that  it  was  "  the 
first  framed  house  in  the  neighborhood."  It  was  situated  on 
slightly  rising  ground  on  the  northern  side  of  the  creek,  called 
after  the  Calhoun  family,  and  was  so  well  built,  he  adds,  as  to 
last  nearly  a  century.  It  had  only  been  destroyed  by  fire  a  few 
years  before  he  wrote,  and  two  chimneys  still  remained  stand- 
ing at  that  time.  The  house  consisted  of  two  stories,  with 
a  sitting-room  to  the  left  on  entering,  and  four  rooms  in  all 
on  each  floor.  The  scant  furniture  and  decorations  inside 
must  be  left  to  imagination. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Calhoun  house,  though  far  from 
luxurious,  was  one  of  the  most  comfortable  and, —  at  least  in 
some  ways, —  best  appointed  in  the  neighborhood.  There  was 
a  high  degree  of  respect  paid  to  the  father  by  the  neighbors, 
and  he  is  very  commonly  referred  to  as  "  Mr./'  or  "  Esquire." 
It  has  already  been  said,  moreover,  that  he  appears  to  have 
been  in  comfortable  circumstances  and  was  the  owner  of 
thirty-one  slaves.  When  these  latter  were  brought  to  the 
district  is  not  known,  but  Col.  Starke  is  authority  for  the 
statement  that  Patrick  Calhoun,  returning  upon  one  occasion 


EARLY  YEARS  53 

from  his  legislative  duties  5  in  Charles  Town,  "  brought  home 
on  horseback  behind  him  a  young  African,  freshly  imported  in 
some  English  or  New  England  vessel.  The  children  in  the 
neighborhood,  and  perhaps  many  of  the  adults,  had  never  be- 
fore seen  a  black  man.  Mr.  Calhoun  gave  him  the  name  of 
Adam,  and  in  good  time  got  a  wife  for  him.  At  the  time 
of  John  Caldwell's  birth,  Adam  had  a  family  coming  on,  one 
of  whom,  named  Sawney,  was  a  playmate  for  Mr.  Calhoun's 
boys." 

During  the  term  of  more  than  eighteen  years  that  Calhoun 
passed  on  the  family  plantation  it  has  been  seen  that  his  school 
education  was  very  scant,  and  it  is  likely  that  he  had  not 
much  opportunity  for  self-education.  Books  were  costly,  and 
doubtless  rare  at  that  time  in  the  backwoods.  But  the  father 
had  to  go  to  Charleston  to  attend  meetings  of  the  Legislature, 
and  it  may  be  that,  as  suggested  by  Col.  Starke,  he  would  oc- 
casionally bring  back  with  him  in  his  leather  saddle-bags  (the 
journey  was  probably  made  on  horse-back)  "  a  book  for  his 
children,  especially  for  John,  who  took  to  reading  from  early 
boyhood."  I  know,  however,  of  no  actual  evidence  of  the 
boy's  showing  any  fondness  for  reading,  until  his  already  nar- 
rated stay  at  Waddel's  school,  when  between  thirteen  and. 
fourteen  years  of  age. 

But  after  that  date  the  story  is  possibly  different,  though 
our  knowledge  in  regard  to  the  subject  is  scant  enough.  A 
copy  of  the  South  Carolina  Gazette  for  May  10,  1798,  was 
preserved  among  the  Calhoun  papers,6  and  bears  in  many  parts 
the  pencil-marks  of  the  then  sixteen  year  old  John  Caldwell. 
Here  we  have  the  earliest  actual  evidence  of  the  youth's  inter- 
est in  public  affairs.  It  is,  moreover,  far  from  bald  guessing  to 
assume  that  a  boy,  who  had  at  fourteen  so  greedily  devoured 

6  Patrick  Calhoun's  first  service  in  the  Legislature  was  in  1760,  ante. 

6  Col.  Starke  is  authority  for  this  statement  and  for  that  as  to  the 
handwriting.  He  is  apparently  endorsed  also  by  Prof.  Jameson,  who  tells 
us  (Foot-note  to  Col.  Starke's  "Sketch,"  p.  76)  that  among  the  contents 
of  the  newspaper  in  question  were  "  accounts  of  proceedings  in  Congress 
on  April  n  and  13,  including  a  party  debate  on  relations  with  France; 
memorials  from  Pennsylvania  and  Baltimore  on  the  same  subject;  Presi- 
dent Adams's  reply,  April  21,  to  an  address  of  the  citizens  of  York,  Pa.,  and 
the  proceedings  of  a  public  meeting  at  Charleston  on  May  4.  Most  of  these 
are  pencil-marked." 


54  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  books  in  his  brother-in-law's  library,  did  not  at  any  time 
afterward  entirely  lose  that  taste  and  would  find  some  means 
to  gratify  it. 

The  chief  element  in  his  training,  however,  down  to  the 
date  in  his  life  at  which  we  have  now  arrived,  was  undoubt- 
edly the  influence  of  his  father  and,  still  more,  of  his  mother. 
The  father  died  when  young  Calhoun  was  but  fourteen,  but 
left  an  impress  on  the  boy,  which  he  seems  never  to  have  for- 
gotten, and  he  always  expressed  himself  7  as  deeply  sensible 
of  the  influence  of  his  parents.  The  father  seems  to  have 
been  a  man  of  exemplary  virtue,  and  of  very  strong  character, 
with  many  of  the  traits  of  his  Scotch-Irish  ancestry.  And  the 
mother,  too,  was  a  woman  of  mark.  Tall  and  stately,  accord- 
ing to  Col.  Starke,  she  left  to  her  descendants  the  memory  of 
many  virtues.  And  to  this  he  adds,  on  the  authority  of  the 
already  mentioned  James  Edward  Calhoun,  who  had  seen  her 
in  his  early  years,  that  "  she  was  a  great  manager.  She 
taught  her  son  John  how  to  administer  the  affairs  of  a  planta- 
tion." In  still  another  place  the  same  writer  adds  8  that  "  he 
was  taught  to  regard  the  Bible  as  a  sacred  book,  to  reverence 
God,  to  obey  his  parents,  to  do  justice  to  all.  He  was  a  pro- 
foundly devout  man  without  being  religious,  and  often  ex- 
pressed himself  as  having  '  unshaken  confidence  in  the  provi- 
dence of  God.' '  We  shall  find  all  this  fully  borne  out  by  his 
history  in  the  years  now  but  a  little  way  ahead  of  us,  how- 
ever much  the  rather  Calvinistic  creed  he  once  accepted  may 
have  been  shaken  in  later  life.  Both  his  parents  were  Presby- 
terians,9 and  probably  strict  ones. 

A  chief  purpose  of  biography  is  to  enable  us  to  understand 
the  mental  make-up  and  growth  of  the  opinions  of  its  sub- 
ject, so  let  us  stop  here  and  try  to  realize  the  influence  that 
Calhoun's  early  surroundings  may  be  supposed  to  have  had 
upon  him.  He  grew  up  in  an  outlying  district,  far  from  the 
busy  haunts  of  men,  where  government  was  not  a  conspicuous 
quantity.  The  federal  power,  so  little  to  be  seen  in  any  part 

7  Senator  Butler  in  eulogium  upon  Calhoun. 
s  "  Sketch,"  p.  77. 

9  Biographical  sketch  reprinted  from  the  "  U.  S.  Telegraph"  in  the 
"  Charleston  Mercury,"  May  10,  1831. 


EARLY  YEARS  55 

of  the  country  at  that  time,  was  of  course  practically  non-ex- 
istent in  upper  South  Carolina  until  Calhoun's  youth,  or  man- 
hood, and  the  affairs  of  the  State  were  managed  in  such  a  way 
as  to  give  those  living  on  the  frontier  a  thorough  dread  of 
being  controlled  by  any  government  at  a  distance,  which  they 
did  not  themselves  select. 

South  Carolina  was  governed  by  an  aristocracy  composed 
of  the  large  planters  in  the  lowlands  and  of  leading  men  in 
their  one  city  of  importance,10  and  of  course  these  managed 
public  affairs  generally  in  their  own  interest.  Gerrymander- 
ing the  State  in  order  to  continue  their  power, —  long  before 
that  word  was  invented, —  they  entirely  controlled  its  des- 
tinies ;  and  those  living  in  the  upper  parts,  toward  the  frontier, 
found  it  impossible  to  secure  such  legislation  as  they  needed. 
They  came  thus  to  be  a  people  by  themselves,  and  it  has  been 
said  n  with  truth  that  between  the  two  great  divisions  of  the 
State  in  these  early  days,  "  there  were  no  ties  of  consanguinity, 
no  identity  of  history,  traditions  or  experience,  no  religious 
affinities,  no  personal  acquaintance,  no  commercial  relation/' 
The  uplanders  felt  strongly  the  injustice  of  the  state  of  af- 
fairs forced  upon  them  by  the  far-off  lowlanders,  under  a  gov- 
ernment nominally  for  the  benefit  of  all,  but  from  which  in 
reality  the  first-named  could  secure  but  little  of  what  they 
wanted. 

One  other  fact  must  be  emphasized.  South  Carolina  was  a 
community  rather  apart  from  the  rest  of  the  United  States. 

10  James  H.  Hammond,  for  many  years  so  prominent  in  South  Carolina, 
wrote  in  his  "  Diary  "  on  December  27,  1850 :  "  The  Government  of  So.  Car. 
is  that  of  an  aristocracy.  When  a  Colony  many  families  arose  in  the  Low 
Country  who  became  very  rich  and  were  highly  educated.  They  were  real 
noblemen  &  ruled  the  Colony  and  the  State  —  the  latter  entirely  until  about 
thirty  years  ago  &  to  a  very  great  extent  to  the  present  moment.  Our 
legislature  has  all  power.  The  Executive  has  none.  The  people  have  none 
beyond  electing  members  of  the  Legislature  —  a  power  very  negligently 
exercised  from  time  immemorial.  The  Legislature  governs  and  the  old 
families  ruled  the  Legislature.  The  abolition  of  primogeniture  in  1790 
was  a  severe  blow  to  them.  Extravagant,  bad  managers  &  degenerating 
fast,  they  have  been  tottering  with  the  death  of  every  one  who  was  in 
active  life  or  at  least  had  his  character  formed  in  the  last  century  or  the 
first  fifteen  years  of  this."  Hammond  Papers  in  Library  of  Congress. 

11 "  Transportation  in  South  Carolina,"  by  W.  L.  Trenholm  in  "Hand- 
Book  of  South  Carolina,"  p.  616,  quoted  in  Hammond's  "  The  Cotton  In- 
dustry in  the  United  States,"  p.  114. 


56  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

To  the  growth  of  this  feeling,  many  causes  contributed,  among 
which  may  be  mentioned  its  great  distance  from  the  more  north- 
ern parts  of  the  country  and  its  lack  of  easy  communication 
with  that  region.  The  centralization  of  the  functions  of  gov- 
ernment, too,  in  the  powerful  classes  in  and  near  Charleston 
contributed  largely  to  the  growth  of  "  a  remarkable  senti- 
ment of  compactness  and  self-reliance."  The  division  be- 
tween the  settlers  in  the  hill-country  and  those  on  the  coastal 
plains  was  very  marked;  but,  none  the  less,  the  people  of  the 
State  in  general  came  in  time, —  and  indeed  early, —  to  feel 
that  South  Carolina  was  their  home,  their  country,  the  na- 
tion to  which  they  owed  allegiance.  This  feeling  was  wide- 
spread throughout  the  whole  United  States  in  our  early  days, 
and  probably  letters  of  nearly  all  the  leading  men  in  every 
one  of  the  thirteen  original  States  could  be  cited,  in  which 
they  write  of  their  State  as  their  "  country." 

The  people  of  South  Carolina  were,  however,  by  no  means 
a  unit  on  the  question  of  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  Federal 
Constitution  in  1788.  The  two  great  divisions  stood  here  once 
more  in  direct  opposition  to  each  other.  The  governing 
classes  strongly  favored  the  instrument,  and  the  delegation 
from  Charleston  voted  unanimously  to  call  a  convention  with 
power  to  ratify.  But  far  different  was  the  feeling  of  the  up- 
country  people.  These  "  outlanders  "  felt  that  they  knew  al- 
ready the  ill  effects  of  a  government  at  less  than  two  hundred 
miles  distance,  in  which  their  delegation  was  but  a  minority; 
and  they  dreaded  with  a  deep  dread  the  thought  of  establish- 
ing over  themselves  another  government  at  a  far  greater  dis- 
tance, in  which  their  voice  might  be  still  more  completely 
smothered. 

The  opposition  to  the  United  States  Constitution  in  South 
Carolina  came,  therefore,  almost  entirely  from  the  people  of 
the  back-country  and  was  among  them  very  general.  Patrick 
Calhoun,  it  has  been  seen,  opposed  the  instrument  on  the 
ground  that  "  it  permitted  other  people  than  those  of  South 
Carolina  to  tax  the  people  of  South  Carolina  and  thus  al- 
lowed taxation  without  representation,  which  was  a  violation 
of  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Revolutionary  struggle." 


EARLY  YEARS  6; 

In  this  instance,  again,  however,  when  the  vote  came  to  be 
taken,  Patrick  Calhoun  and  his  neighbors  of  the  up-country 
found  themselves  defeated  by  the  faraway  lowlanders.12 

All  this  happened,  of  course,  at  a  time  when  John  Cald- 
well  Calhoun  was  not  yet  seven  years  old  and  can  have  made 
little  impression  upon  him;  but  its  echo  must  have  reached 
his  ears  later  and  had  its  effect  as  he  came  to  more  mature 
age.  Much  knowledge  and  many  beliefs  are  imbibed  at  the 
paternal  table,  and  Calhoun  doubtless  heard  from  his  father 
facts  and  opinions  tending  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  the 
State  and  to  argue  its  sovereign  rights  as  a  nation.  The  sur- 
rounding circumstances  and  his  father's  action  in  regard  to 
the  Constitution  would  most  naturally  have  led  to  discussion 
as  to  what  would  have  been  the  condition  of  South  Carolina 
had  she  refused  to  ratify;  and  who  would  then  have  ques- 
tioned but  that  she  would  have  been  a  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent community? 

The  young  Calhoun  grew  up  close  enough  to  that  day  to 
realize  thoroughly  that  the  federal  government  had  been  de- 
pendent for  its  very  existence  upon  the  voluntary  ratification 
of  the  requisite  number  of  separate  States,  and  to  know,  too, 
with  what  breathless  anxiety  the  advocates  of  the  plan  had 
awaited  the  assent  of  one  State  after  another.  In  his  early 
years  the  States  were,  beyond  doubt,  the  primordial,  essential, 
governmental  agency,  and  the  newly-created  federal  govern- 
ment merely  their  derivative, —  a  creation  they  might  well  have 
refused  to  call  into  being.  We  live  so  far  from  that  day,  and 
the  stupendous  events  of  half  a  century  ago  have  resulted  in 
such  a  growth  of  federal  activity,  that  we  have  forgotten  all 
these  facts  and  the  then  current  beliefs  upon  the  subject;  but 
the  student  of  history  knows  them  and  is  apparently  coming 
to  recognize  the  great  strength  they  afford  to  the  arguments  of 
the  States'  Rights  school  of  our  public  men.  This  view  cannot 
be  argued  here,  and  my  only  purpose  is  to  call  attention  to 

12  On  the  condition  of  affairs  in  South  Carolina  about  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  see  article  on  "  The  South  Carolina  Federal- 
ists," by  Ulrich  B.  Phillips,  in  the  "American  Historical  Review,"  Vol. 
XIV  (April,  1909),  pp.  529-543-  As  to  Patrick  Calhoun's  action,  see  Cal- 
houn's  "  Autobiography." 


58  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

how  strongly  the  facts  mentioned  probably  influenced  the  mind 
of  Calhoun  in  his  early  days.  Impressions  made  at  that  time 
doubtless  aided  to  guide  his  pen  many  years  later  when  draft- 
ing some  of  his  resolutions  as  to  the  nature  of  the  State  and 
federal  governments. 

Another  one  of  the  circumstances  surrounding  his  early 
years  must  be  mentioned.  When  Calhoun's  mind  began  to  de- 
velop,— even,  indeed,  when  his  eyes  first  opened  in  the 
world, —  he  found  himself  in  a  slave  community.  A  very  in- 
ferior race  was  held  in  bondage  by  that  race  to  which  he  be- 
longed. The  subject  people  had  but  few  rights,  were  forced 
to  work  at  the  command  of  their  white  owners,  were  punished 
by  their  masters,  and  were  kept  strictly  under  the  control  of  the 
white  people.  Nothing  could  be  more  striking  than  the  es- 
sential superiority  of  those  masterful  whites  to  the  absolutely 
ignorant  and  almost  barbarous  blacks.  In  his  own  home,  pre- 
sided over  by  his  father  and  mother,  he  found  this  system  at 
the  earliest  date  he  could  possibly  remember,  and  he  could 
hardly  think  very  ill  of  it,  without  first  ceasing  to  accord  to 
his  parents'  opinion  the  respect  that  almost  all  children  render. 

This  was  the  case  throughout  the  whole  South  down  to 
1865;  but  it  was  perhaps  even  more  striking  in  these  early 
days.  Among  the  slaves  on  the  Calhoun  place,  we  are  told 
.  that  at  least  one  (Adam)  was  a  native  of  Africa  and  had  been 
imported  thence  to  this  country.  Of  course,  this  had  been  done 
in  gross  violence  and  wrong,  but  there  was  another  point  to 
be  considered  here ;  and  the  Southern  view  is  absolutely  sound : 
that  by  his  seizure  and  the  bringing  of  him  to  America  that 
poor  black  had  been  rescued  from  a  cruel  and  savage  bar- 
barism,—  and  possibly  slavery, —  beyond  measure  harder  to 
endure  than  any  ill  of  the  slavery  he  could  meet  in  this  coun- 
try. He  was  in  truth  vastly  bettered  by  the  wrong  done  him, 
and  those  who  think  upon  the  subject  are  coming  to  recognize 
as  true  the  view  always  maintained  by  the  South, —  that  the 
black  race  owes  a  heavy  debt  to  the  Southern  people  for  "the 
immense  amount  of  help  rendered  the  Negro  during  the  pe- 
riod  he  was  a  slave."  13 

18  Booker  T.  Washington  in  "Tuskegee  Normal  Institute  Annual  Re- 


EARLY  YEARS  59 

All  these  ideas  and  many  more  of  the  same  general  character 
must  have  been  trite  among  Southerners  at  that  date,  as  they 
were  to  later  generations;  and  doubtless  John  Caldwell  Cal- 
houn  both  heard  discussions  in  which  such  views  were  brought 
out  and  unconsciously  imbibed  those  views  from  the  logic  of 
the  surrounding  circumstances.  And,  as  he  grew  older,  he 
could  not  have  failed  to  be  deeply  impressed  with  the  inherent 
and  probably  ineradicable  incapacity  of  the  blacks.  Their  in- 
feriority was  and  is  so  painfully  evident  as  not  to  require 
emphasis  here,  and  its  ineradicable  nature  is  strongly  argued 
by  the  absolute  blank  that  the  history  of  the  negro  race  pre- 
sents. The  white  people  and  others  have  repeatedly  evolved  a 
civilization  within  themselves.  Why  has  the  negro  never  done 
so,  nor  even  been  able, —  when  separated  from  the  superior 
race, —  to  hold  the  veneering  that  had  been  acquired  by  dint 
of  long  contact  with  a  capable  people? 

Calhoun's  lifelong  views  cannot  but  have  been  profoundly 
influenced  by  all  these  thoughts.  His  early  years  fell,  too,  in  a 
time  when  slavery  had  acquired  little,  if  any,  of  the  harsh- 
ness that  marked  it  in  some  instances  later;  nor  were  the  ill 
effects  of  the  system  upon  the  white  people  then  conspicuous. 
Dwelling  in  a  border-land,  the  idea  of  the  whites  not  work- 
ing does  not  seem  yet  to  have  arisen,  and  despite  the  rather 
large  possessions  of  Patrick  Calhoun,  it  is  clear  that  hard  work 
was  the  rule  on  his  farm.  Col.  Starke  writes  that  no  idea 
whatsoever  of  the  degradation  of  manual  labor  (in  his  opinion 
one  of  the  worst  of  the  later  ill  effects  of  slavery  upon  the 
whites)  had  grown  up  in  Patrick  Calhoun's  family,  and  he  had 
himself  often  seen  the  grandsons  following  the  plough.  He 
tells  us,  too,  that  Sawney, —  the  son  of  Adam  and  the  play- 
mate of  the  Calhoun  boys, —  used  to  delight  in  his  old  age 
to  tell  all  inquirers  at  great  length  what  he  knew  of  John 
Caldwell  Calhoun.  They  had  hunted  and  fished  together, 
it  seems,  and  Sawney  would  add :  "  We  worked  in  the  field, 
and  many's  the  times  in  the  br'ilin'  sun  me  and  Mars  John 
has  plowed  together."  14 

port,"  1901,  quoted  in  Alfred  Holt  Stone's  "  Studies  in  the  American  Race 
Problem,"  p.  89. 
14  Calhoun  told  John  Quincy  Adams  in  1820  that  both  he  and  his  father 


60  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

All  this  was  long  before  the  general  introduction  of  the  over- 
seer, to  whose  advent  and  the  consequent  quasi  absentee  land- 
lordism may  probably  be  attributed  many  of  the  harsh  condi- 
tions of  the  slavery  of  later  times.  The  system  at  that  early 
day  was  a  very  different  institution,  as  to  which  I  shall  quote 
the  words  of  the  oft-cited  Col.  Starke,  a  native  of  the  Calhoun 
region  in  South  Carolina,  who  tells  us  here  what  he  saw 
with  his  own  eyes  in  this  very  region,  and  what  we  know 
from  other  sources  to  be  a  true  picture.  He  writes : 

The  institution  of  slavery,  the  old  plantation  life,  is  gone.  Soon 
all  recollection  of  it  will  be  lost.  In  order  to  enable  the  reader 
to  understand  something  of  that  life,  we  shall  give  a  brief  ac- 
count of  what  fell  under  our  notice.  We  shall  present  no  imag- 
inary picture. 

Not  far  from  the  Calhoun  settlement  lived  a  man  who  had 
ridden  with  Sumter  in  the  old  war  for  liberty.  During  a  long 
and  active  life  he  managed  the  business  of  the  plantation  himself. 
Towards  the  close  of  his  life  he  consented  to  try  an  overseer, 
but  in  every  case  some  difficulty  soon  arose  between  the  middle- 
man and  the  negroes,  in  which  the  old  planter  invariably  took 
sides  with  the  latter,  and  rid  himself  of  the  proxy.  On  rainy 
days  the  negro  women  spun  raw  cotton  into  yarn,  which  was 
woven  by  his  own  weaver  into  summer  goods,  to  be  cut  out  by  a 
seamstress,  and  made  by  the  other  women,  assisted  by  her,  into 
clothing  for  the  "  people."  The  sheep  were  shorn,  and  the  wool 
treated  in  the  same  fashion  for  winter  clothing.  The  hides  of 
cattle  eaten  on  the  place  were  tanned  into  leather  and  made 
into  shoes  by  his  own  shoemaker.  He  had  his  own  carpenters, 
wheelwright,  and  blacksmiths,  and  besides  cattle  and  sheep  the 
old  planter  raised  his  own  stock  of  horses  and  mules.  He  grew 
his  own  wheat  for  flour,  besides  raising  other  small  grain,  corn 
and  cotton.  He  distilled  his  own  brandy  from  peaches  and  sweet- 
ened it  with  honey  manufactured  by  his  own  bees.  His  negroes 

had  often  held  the  plough;  but,  according  to  Adams,  then  went  on  to 
draw  a  distinction  in  regard  to  labor,  such  as  is  very  hard  for  us  to-day 
to  understand.  See  post,  pp.  259,  260.  John  Quincy  Adams's  "  Memoirs," 
Vol.  V,  p.  10.  Macon,  too,  worked  regularly  with  his  slaves,  Benton's 
"Thirty  Years'  View,"  Vol.  I,  p.  117,  William  E.  Dodd's  "Nathaniel 
Macon,"  pp.  89,  90;  and  Jefferson  Davis,  when  he  started  his  Mississippi 
plantation,  ^ "  worked  with  his  own  hands  and  directed  personally  and 
through  his  trusty  foreman  .  .  .  the  labor  of  the  fields,"  William  E. 
Dodd's  "Jefferson  Davis,"  p.  43. 


EARLY  YEARS  61 

were  well  fed  and  clothed,  carefully  attended  to  in  sickness, 
virtually  free  in  old  age,  and  supported  in  comfort  till  their  death. 
The  moral  law  against  adultery  was  sternly  enforced  upon  the 
place,  and  no  divorce  allowed.  His  people  were  encouraged 
to  enjoy  themselves  in  all  reasonable  ways.  They  went  to  a 
Methodist  Church  in  the  neighborhood  on  Sunday,  and  had  be- 
sides a  preacher  of  their  own,  raised  on  the  place.  The  young 
were  supplied  with  necessary  riddling  and  dancing.  I  was  pres- 
ent when  he  died,  and  heard  him  say  to  his  son  that  he  would 
leave  him  a  property  honestly  made  and  not  burdened  with  a 
dollar  of  indebtedness.  His  family  and  friends  were  gathered 
about  his  bedside  when  the  time  had  come  for  him  to  go.  Hav- 
ing taken  leave  of  his  friends,  he  ordered  his  negro  laborers 
to  be  summoned  from  the  field  to  take  farewell  of  him.  When 
they  arrived  he  was  speechless  and  motionless,  but  sensible  of  all 
that  was  occurring,  as  could  be  seen  from  his  look  of  intelligence. 
One  by  one  the  negroes  entered  the  apartment,  and  filing  by  him 
in  succession  took  each  in  turn  the  limp  hand  of  their  dying 
master,  and  affectionately  pressing  it  for  a  moment,  thanked  him 
for  his  goodness,  commended  him  to  God,  and  bade  him  farewell. 

Finally,  in  regard  to  these  early  years  of  Calhoun,  at- 
tention must  be  called  to  one  other  fact,  which  is  borne  upon 
by  Col.  Starke,  is  the  usual  Southern  view  about  life  on  a 
plantation,  and  which  beyond  doubt  has  a  great  deal  of  truth 
in  it.  This  author  says : 

The  faithful  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  proprietor  of  a  plan- 
tation in  former  times  .demanded  administrative  as  well  as  moral 
qualities  of  a  high  order.  There  never  was  a  better  school  for 
the  education  of  statesmen  than  the  administration  of  a  South- 
ern plantation  under  the  former  regime.  A  well-governed  plan- 
tation was  a  well-ordered  little  independent  state.  Surrounded 
with  such  environments,  Calhoun  grew  up  at  this  school. 

If  the  future  Senator  and  greatest  of  Southern  leaders  lacked 
early  tuition,  he  had  at  least  from  an  early  age  that  better 
instructor,  ceaseless  responsibility,  and  was  persistently  called 
upon  to  exercise  watchfulness  as  to  the  thousand  details  of  the 
difficult  microcosm  under  his  care. 


CHAPTER  III 

EDUCATION 

The  Turning  Point  —  Waddel's  School  —  College  Life  at  Yale 
—  Impressions. 

THE  great  change  in  Calhoun's  life, —  which  resulted  in 
giving  him  to  public  affairs  for  which  so  few  are  well  fitted, 
instead  of  wasting  his  remarkable  capacities  in  agriculture  to 
which  thousands  of  others  are  as  well  suited  as  he  was,— 
came  about  during  the  early  part  of  his  nineteenth  year.  Of 
course,  even  otherwise  he  might  have  entered  public  life  in 
some  way;  but,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  the  incident  referred 
to  was  the  sole  cause  that  led  to  his  great  career/)  It  is  said 
by  Col.  Starke  on  the  authority  of  James -Edward  Calhoun 
that,  as  he  grew  toward  maturity,  "  a  feeling  manifested  it- 
self among  the  people  in  remarks  that  John  C.  Calhoun  ought 
to  be  educated."  But  this  statement  is  not  borne  out  by  the 
"  Autobiography,"  and  it  is  impossible  to  know  whether  the 
neighbors  really  had  any  part  in  bringing  about  the  change. 

The  only  reliable  information  on  this  point  is  the  following 
from  Calhoun's  own  account : 

.  /.  .  About  this  time,  an  incident  occurred  which  turned  his 
after-life.  His  second  brother,  James,  who  had  been  placed  at 
a  counting-house  in  Charleston,  returned  to  spend  the  summer 
of  1800  at  home.  John  had  determined  to  become  a  planter;  but 
James,  objecting  to  this,  strongly  urged  him  to  acquire  a  good 
education  and  pursue  one  of  the  learned  professions.  He  re- 
plied that  he  was  not  averse  to  the  course  advised,  but  there 
were  two  difficulties  in  the  way :  one  was  to  obtain  the  assent  of 
his  mother,  without  which  he  could  not  think  of  leaving  her, 
and  the  other  was  the  want  of  means.  He  said  his  property  was 
small  and  his  resolution  fixed :  he  would  rather  be  a  planter  than 
a  half -informed  physician  or  lawyer.  With  this  determination,  he 

62 


EDUCATION  63 

could  not  bring  his  mind  to  select  either  without  ample  prepara- 
tion ;  but  if  the  consent  of  his  mother  should  be  freely  given,  and 
he  (James)  thought  he  could  so  manage  his  property  as  to  keep 
him  in  funds  for  seven  years  of  study  preparatory  to  entering  his 
profession,  he  would  leave  home  and  commence  his  education  the 
next  week.  His  mother  and  brother  agreeing  to  his  condition, 
he  accordingly  left  home  the  next  week  for  Dr.  Waddel's,  who 
had  married  again  and  resumed  his  academy  in  Columbia  county, 
Georgia. 

It  was  in  June  of  1800  that  this  event  happened,  and  from 
that  time  on  until  his  death,  half  a  century  later,  Calhoun's 
career  was  brilliant  at  every  stage.  \  The  devotion  of  the 
mother  thus  willing  to  part  with  her  son  for  his  good,  and  the 
unselfishness  of  the  brothers,  who  doubtless  made  considerable 
pecuniary  sacrifices  for  his  benefit,  need  to  be  mentioned  in 
passing.  At  one  time  during  his  years  of  study,  in  1806,  it 
seems  that  James  Calhoun  found  the  burden  heavy  to  carry 
and  wanted  him  to  come  home.  On  April  I3th  of  that  year, 
Calhoun  wrote  from  Litchfield  that  his  brother  James  would 
be  there  in  the  latter  part  of  June  and  "  is  desirous  of  my  re- 
turning with  him ;  but  I  have  not  yet  gave  l  him  an  answer. 
However,  as  the  course  of  lectures  will  not  conclude  till  the 
fall,  I  do  not  think  it  probable  I  shall."  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  lack  of  money  was  the  cause  for  this  wish  on  the 
part  of  the  brother,  and  it  was  only  about  three  months  later 
that  the  law-student  is  to  be  found  asking  a  loan.2 
^Returning  thus  for  a  second  time  to  Dr.  Waddel's  school, 
it  may  be  assumed  that  Calhoun  applied  himself  assiduously 
to  work,  or  he  could  never  have  made  the  rapid  progress 
he  did  make.  I  He  himself  writes  that  he  may  be  said  to 
have  commenced  his  education  at  this  time,  while  Starke  adds 

1 1  transcribe  from  Prof.  Jameson's  "  Calhoun  Correspondence  "  precisely 
as  the  letters  are  there  printed,  down  to  and  including  those  ending  on 
p.  98  post.  After  that  time  I  have  omitted  mere  errors  of  spelling.  A 
good  many  of  these,  and  some  of  grammar,  occur  in  the  printed  "  Cor- 
respondence," but  probably  not  a  few  are  owing  to  the  difficulty  of  read- 
ing Calhoun's  handwriting,  and  he  had  some  strange  indifference  in  the 
matter.  Within  a  few  lines  the  same  word  will  be  found  correctly  and 
again  incorrectly  spelled.  Misspelling  and  pet  errors  of  grammar  arc 
faults  common  enough  to-day  as  well  as  in  Calhoun's  time. 

2  Letter  to  Mrs.  Colhoun,  dated  July  3,  1806. 


64  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

that  he  then  "  opened  for  the  first  time  a  Latin  grammar." 
We  shall  soon  see  where  he  stood  two  years  later. 

Not  very  much  has  survived  in  regard  to  the  famous  Waddel 
school  of  the  South.  At  the  time  of  Calhoun's  short  stay 
as  a  boy  in  1795,  it  was  situated  near  the  small  town  of 
Appling,  in  the  present  Columbia  County,  Georgia,  not  far 
from  the  Savannah  River,  and  at  the  date  of  his  second  at- 
tendance, in  1800,  Calhoun  himself  has  just  been  quoted  to 
the  effect  that  it  was  still  in  Columbia  County,  Georgia.  In 
1804  it  was  removed  to  Willington  in  Abbeville  County,  South 
Carolina,  and  was  there  maintained  for  many  years  by  Mr. 
Waddel,  the  father,  and  later  by  his  sons.3  It  lived  long 
in  the  memory  of  Southern  men  as  "  the  Willington  Academy." 
At  this,  its  last  and  most  enduring  situation,  the  school  was 
upon  a  high  and  healthy  ridge  between  the  Savannah  and 
Little  Rivers,  not  far  from  the  region  where  the  members  of 
the  Calhoun  family  had  settled.  John  C.  Calhoun  also  lived 
near  by  during  some  years  of  his  early  manhood.  The  latter 
long  afterward  wrote  as  follows  of  Dr.  Waddel  as  a  teacher.4 

In  that  character,  he  stands  almost  unrivaled.  He  may  be 
justly  considered  as  the  father  of  classical  education  in  the  upper 
country  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.  His  excellence  in  that 
character  depended  not  so  much  on  extensive  or  profound  learn- 
ing as  a  felicitous  combination  of  qualities  for  the  government  of 
boys  and  communicating  to  them  what  he  knew.  He  was  par- 
ticularly successful  in  exciting  emulation  amongst  them,  and 
in  obtaining  the  good  will  of  all  except  the  worthless.  The 
best  evidence  of  his  high  qualities  as  a  teacher  is  his  success. 
Among  his  pupils  are  to  be  found  a  large  part  of  the  eminent 
men  in  this  State  and  Georgia.  In  this  State  it  is  sufficient  to 

3 1  have  depended  in  the  main  for  details  as  to  Waddel's  school  on 
Colyer  Meriwether's^  "History  of  Higher  Education  in  South  Carolina" 
(Bureau  of  ^Education.  Circular  of  Information,  No.  3,  1888),  pp.  38, 
39.  This  writer  says  that  the  school  was  in  1800  at  "Vienna,"  apparently 
meaning  in  Georgia,  and  this  seems  to  be  borne  out  by  Calhoun's  state- 
ment quoted  in  my  text.  Vienna  was,  however,-  in  a  region  very  little 
settled  at  that  date,  and  there  was  another  Vienna  in  Abbeville  County, 
South  Carolina,  close  to  Willington.  As  to  the  mode  of  life  at  the  school, 


Education  in  South  Carolina.'* 


EDUCATION  65 

name  McDuffie,  Legare,  Petigru,  and  my  colleague  Butler.  To 
these  many  others  of  distinction  might  be  added.  His  pupils 
in  Georgia  who  have  distinguished  themselves  are  numerous. 
In  the  list  are  to  be  found  the  names  of  William  H.  Crawford, 
Longstreet,  etc.  It  is  in  his  character  of  a  teacher  especially, 
that  he  will  long  be  remembered  as  a  benefactor  of  the  country. 

There  seems  to  be  no  record  left  of  the  school  as  it  was 
in  Calhoun's  day  at  its  earlier  homes,  but  even  at  Willington 
it  was  plain  indeed.  Log-houses  took  the  place  of  the  lux- 
urious dormitories  of  modern  times.  These  shanties  varied 
in  size  from  six  to  sixteen  feet  square,  and  fronted  on  a  sort 
of  street  shaded  by  majestic  oaks,  while  at  the  head  of  the 
street  stood  a  larger  log-house  divided  into  two  rooms,  one 
of  which  was  intended  for  the  smaller  boys,  while  the  other 
was  used  for  recitation,  for  prayers,  and  for  all  general  pur- 
poses. It  was  without  seats,  and  was  large  enough  to  hold 
one  hundred  and  fifty  boys  standing  erect.  "  Under  the  wide- 
spreading  branches  in  summer,"  we  are  told,  "  and  in  their 
huts  in  winter,  the  students  diligently  studied,  changing  their 
occupation  at  the  sound  of  the  horn,  and  repairing  to  the 
house  for  recitation  when  called  for  by  the  name  of  '  the 
Virgil  class,  the  Homer  class/  or  by  the  name  of  the  author 
they  were  studying.  .  .  .  Such  was  the  spirit  (of  study) 
among  them  that  drones  were  hardly  tolerated  at  all.  Their 
life  was  simple  and  industrious,  and  their  food  was  Spartan 
in  its  plainness  —  corn-bread  and  bacon.  Instead  of  gas  and 
students'  lamps,  they  pored  over  the  lessons  by  the  aid  of 
pine  torches.  At  the  sound  of  the  horn,  they  retired  to  bed. 
.  .  .  They  rose  at  dawn,  and  resumed  their  studies." 

To  this  may  be  added  from  other  sources  a  few  words  bear- 
ing more  directly  on  Calhoun's  own  life  at  the  school.  Thus, 
one  authority 5  writes :  "  It  is  related  of  him  by  his  school- 
mates, that  while  at  Waddel's  Academy,  he  had  an  impedi- 
ment or  hesitancy  in  his  speech,  which,  added  to  his  unusual 
diffidence,  rendered  his  prospects  of  eminence  as  a  speaker 

5  "  Measures  not  Men :  Illustrated  by  some  remarks  upon  the  public 
conduct  and  character  of  John  C.  Calhoun,"  by  a  Citizen  of  New  York. 
New  York,  1823.  The  pamphlet  being  anonymous,  its  statement?  must  of 
course  be  received  with  caution, 


66  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

quite  unflattering."  And  Col.  Starke,6  who  writes  that  he 
himself  was,  of  course  at  a  later  date,  "  long  an  inmate  of 
Moses  Waddel's  family  and  a  pupil  at  the  Willington  Acad- 
emy," gives  an  account  of  the  old  Willington  school  as  the 
boys  of  his  day  had  received  it  from  tradition.  His  account 
agrees  in  the  main  with  what  has  been  already  said  of  the 
school  in  general,  but  adds  certain  information  as  to  a  particu- 
lar point  that  is  interesting  in  view  of  Calhoun's  later  life. 
After  telling  us  that  it  was  a  classical  school  and  quite  devoid 
10 f  the  modern  multiplicity  of  studies,  he  writes  that  "  the 
[debating  club  on  Friday  afternoons  was  an  important  institu- 
tion and  regarded  by  the  teacher  as  a  very  necessary  part  of 
his  scholastic  system,  for  to  converse  and  speak  in  public  were 
esteemed  necessary  accomplishments  to  Southern  youths."  A 
valuable  training,  indeed,  for  one  whose  then  unknown  destiny 
it  was  to  debate  in  later  years  with  Clay  and  Webster  and  the 
other  giants  of  his  time! 

In  the  short  space  of  two  years  at  this  school  the  raw  country 
boy,  who  started  in  1800  with  almost  none  of  the  foundations 
of  learning  but  had  zeal  and  inborn  abilities  of  a  most  unusual 
order,  entered  in  1802  the  Junior  class  at  Yale,  then  as  now 
one  of  the  leading  institutions  of  learning  in  the  country.  He 
had  begun  his  education  at  Waddel's  school  and  first  opened  a 
Latin  grammar  only  some  two  or  three  months  in  advance  of 
the  time  when  his  Yale  classmates  of  1802  were  entering  upon 
their  college  life  as  freshmen,  after  possibly  ten  or  twelve  years 
of  preparatory  work. 

early  in  college  life  to  have  found  himself  quite 


the  equal  of  his  classmates. \  Asked  once  in  later  years  when 
the  thought  first  came  into  his  mind  of  his  superiority  to  ordi- 
nary men,  he  smiled  and  then  answered  as  follows : 

"  I  went  on  to  Yale  College,  fresh  from  the  backwoods. 
My  opportunities  for  learning  had  been  very  limited.  I  had 
a  high  opinion  of  the  New  England  system  of  education.  My 
first  recitation  was  in  mathematics,  and  we  had  been  told  to 
fetch  our  slates  into  the  class-room.  On  taking  our  seats  the 
professor  proceeded  to  propound  certain  arithmetical  ques- 

0  "  Sketch,"  pp.  79,  80. 


EDUCATION  67 

tions  to  us.  I  found  no  difficulty  in  working  out  the  first,  and 
on  looking  about  me  was  surprised  to  find  the  others  busy 
with  their  slates.  The  professor  noticing  my  movement  asked 
me  if  I  had  got  the  answer,  and  I  handed  him  my  slate.  The 
answer  proved  to  be  correct.  The  same  thing  occurred  every 
time.  On  returning  to  my  apartment  I  felt  gratified.  This  is, 
perhaps,  sir,  the  best  answer  I  can  give  to  your  question."  7 

Calhoun  tells  us  in  the  "  Autobiography  "  that  he  was  highly 
esteemed  by  Dr.  Dwight,  the  then  president  of  the  college,  de- 
spite their  wide  differences  in  politics.  Calhoun  came  up  from 
the  South,  a  Republican,  like  most  of  his  home  neighbors,  and 
full  of  all  the  theories  of  popular  rights  supported  by  them 
and  the  Jeffersonians  in  general.  To  Dwight,  on  the  other 
hand,  Jefferson  and  all  his  beliefs  were  a  horrid  nightmare. 
Dwight  was  indeed  among  the  most  ultra  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Federalists  of  that  day,  when  party  feeling  ran  so  high 
that  in  Connecticut  ostracism  was  the  probable  result  of  espous- 
ing the  Republican  cause.  More  than  one  person  suffered  from 
the  bitterness  of  this  feeling,  and  otherwise  harmless  pro- 
fessors had  found  the  confines  of  Yale  College  far  too  warm 
for  them  to  live  in. 

But  Calhoun  came  from  afar  and  was  barely  entering  man- 
hood, so  his  views  were  possibly  less  harmful,  and  the  Presi- 
dent seems  even  to  have  drawn  him  out.  The  "  Autobiog- 
raphy "  has  the  following  story  upon  this  point : 

The  doctor  [Dwight]  was  an  ardent  Federalist,  and  Mr.  Cal- 
houn was  one  of  a  very  few,  in  a  class  of  more  than  seventy, 
who  had  the  firmness  openly  to  avow  and  maintain  the  opinions 
of  the  Republican  party,  and,  among  others,  that  the  people  were 
the  only  legitimate  source  of  political  power.  Dr.  Dwight  en- 
tertained a  different  opinion,  f  In  a  recitation  during  the  senior 
year,  on  the  Chapter  on  Politics  in  Paley's  Moral  Philosophy, 
the  doctor,  with  the  intention  of  eliciting  his  opinion,  pro- 
pounded to  Mr.  Calhoun  the  question,  as  to  the  legitimate  source 

7  Col.  Starke's  "  Sketch,"  p.  80.  I  at  first  supposed  that  this  superiority 
of  Calhoun  was  in  reality  owing  in  great  part  to  his  age  (22  years  at 
graduation),  but  inquiry  developed  the  fact  that  of  the  60  members 
of  his  class,  whose  ages  are  known  (of  6  there  are  no  details  on  this 
point),  as  many  as  24  were  22  or  older.  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Edwin 
Rogers  Embree,  Alumni  Registrar  of  Yale,  for  these  facts. 


68  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

of  power.  He  did  not  decline  an  open  and  direct  avowal  of  his 
opinion.  A  discussion  ensued  between  thern^  which  exhausted 
the  time  allotted  for  the  recitation,  and  in  which  the  pupil  main- 
tained his  opinions  with  such  vigor  of  argument  and  success 
as  to  elicit  from  his  distinguished  teacher  the  declaration,8  in 
speaking  of  him  to  a  friend,  that  "the  young  man  had  talent 
enough  to  be  President  of  the  United  States,"  which  he  ac- 
companied by  a  prediction  that  he  would  one  day  attain  that  sta- 
tion. 


/       Calhoun  graduated  with  distinction  on  September  12,  1804, 

/    but  little  more  than  four  years  after  the  date  at  which  he  had 

/    really  begun  his  education.     Among  his  classmates  were  John 

/     M.  Felder  and  Micah  Sterling  from  South  Carolina,  with  both 

/      of  whom  we  shall  find  him  associated  in  after  years;  as  well 

/       as  the  following,  who  all  came  in  time  to  occupy  positions  of 

prominence  in  some  department  of  life  :     Christopher  E.  Gads- 

den  was  Bishop  of  South  Carolina;  John  Gadsden,  Attorney 

General  of  South  Carolina;  John  P.  Hampton,  Judge  of  the 

Supreme  Court  of  Mississippi,  and  Bennett  Tyler,  President  of 

Dartmouth  College  and  later   President  of  the  Theological 

Seminary  at  East  Windsor  Hill. 

in  the  latter  part  of  August,  1804,  Calhoun  had  a  serious 
illness  which  "  well-nigh  put  an  end  "  to  his  life.  He  hoped 
in  the  end  of  the  month  to  be  well  enough  by  commencement 
"to  realize  the  enjoyments  and  participate  in  the  labor  of 
that  Day,"  9  but  such  was  not  the  case,  and  he  was  not  even 
able  to  be  present.  He  had  been  assigned  to  deliver  an  Eng- 

iis  opinion  of  Dwight  is  mentioned  by  numerous  other  authors, 
The  writing  of  earliest  date  to  which  I  have  been  able  to  trace  it  is  the 
pamphlet  of  1823  cited  shortly  above  and  called  "  Measures  not  Men," 
&c.,  &c.  Perhaps  another  version  of  this  story  should  be  mentioned  here, 
but  it  seems  to  be  based  on  nothing  but  a  loose  newspaper-clipping.  Ac- 
cording to  this,  Dwight's  words  were,  "  Young  man,  your  talents  are  of  a 
high  order  and  might  justify  you  for  any  station,  but  I  deeply  regret  that 
you  do  not  love  sound  principles  better  than  sophistry  —  you  seem  to 
possess  a  most  unfortunate  bias  -towards  error."  "Letter  of  Petigru  to 
Legare,"  dated  December  17,  1836,  and  enclosing  such  a  newspaper-cut- 
ting. "The  Life  and  Times  of  James  L.  Petigru,"  by  Joseph  Blyth 
Allston  in  the  "Charleston  Sunday  News,"  January  21  to  June  17,  1900: 
see  issue  of  June  17.  The  story  ought  to  be  reproduced  here,  I  feel,  but 
is  probably  apocryphal. 

9  Letter  to  Mrs.  Floride  Colhoun  of  August  29,  1804,  and  to  Alexander 
Noble  of  Oct.  15,  1804.    See  also  the  "  Autobiography." 


EDUCATION  69 

lish  oration  and  had  selected  as  his  thesis  "  The  qualifications 
necessary  to  constitute  a  perfect  statesman,"  but  this  paper, 
interesting  as  it  would  be  to-day  in  the  light  of  his  subsequent 

career,  has  never  seen  the  light  of  day,. 1 

tJtThus  graduated,  and  with  the  degree  of  bachelor  of  arts 
in  his  pocket  written  in  a  language  of  which  but  four  years 
earlier  he  had  not  known  the  first  rudiments,  the  brilliant 
young  South  Carolinian  was  now  a  man  of  twenty-two  and  a 
half  years.  .Ik&rt'e.  he  leavts  New  England  to  go 'home  again, 
a  word  must  be  said  of  a  family  with  the  members  of  which 
he  became  intimately  acquainted  about  the  elose  of  his  years 
at  Yale.  They  had  never  met  before,10  despite  the  fact  that 
they  were  closely  related.  He  went  South  with  them  on  this 
occasion,  and  the  only  daughter  of  the  family,  at  this  time  a 
child  of  twelve,  became  his  wife  in  course  ofjtimej 

Among  the  brothers  of  Patrick  Calhoun  to  come  over  from 
Ireland  was  one  Ezekiel,  who  married  a  Miss  Ewing  and  left 
behind  him  among  other  children  a  son,  John  Ewing  Calhoun, 
or,  as  he  spelled  the  name,  Colhoun.  John  Ewing  Colhoun 
has  already  been  mentioned  in  these  pages  as  having  gone 
to  Charlestown  from  the  upper  country  about  1776  with  the 
intention  of  studying  law.  Instead  of  this,  however,  he  en- 
listed as  a  private  in  Colonel  Charles  Drayton's  Volunteer 
Company  and  was  not  admitted  to  the  bar  until  1783.  On 
October  8,  1786,  he  married  Floride  Bonneau,  who  was,  ac- 
cording to  Col.  Starke's  "  Sketch,"  "  a  low-country  heiress  of 
French  extraction  [and  whose  family]  lived  at  Bonneau's 
Ferry  on  Cooper  River,  about  twenty  miles  above  Charleston." 
The  same  authority  tells  us  that  she  was  the  owner  of  a  rice- 
plantation  and  of  lands  in  the  upper  country;  and  according 
to  a  newspaper  marriage-notice  n  of  the  time  she  was  "  an 

10  Letter  to  Mrs.  Floride  Colhoun,  dated  June  12,  1810. 

11  The  Charleston  "Morning  Post  and  Daily  Advertiser"  of  Monday, 
October  9,  1786,  quoted  in  Mr.  Salley's  "The  Calhoun  Family  of  South 
Carolina,"  printed  in  "The  South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical 
Magazine,"  Vol.  VII    (1906),  p.   154,  speaks  of  the  marriage  as  having 
occurred  on  October  8,  and  again  "yesterday."    This  fixes  it  on  a  Sun- 
day.   The   facts   in  the   text   in   regard   to  the   family  of   John  ^  Ewing 
Colhoun  and  his  career  in  general  are  taken  from  Mr.  Salley's  article,  pp. 
153,  154,  and  from  other  publications  in  the  same  magazine,  Vol.  I,  pp. 
J34,  135,  162,  186,  187.     See  also,  ante,  p.  43. 


70  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

agreeable  young  lady,  with  every  accomplishment  to  make 
the  married  state  happy."  Whatever  we,  who  live  in  the 
last  degree  of  newspaper  gossip  as  to  private  life,  may  think 
of  the  taste  of  this  sort  of  announcement  by  public  prints  it 
was  in  the  particular  case  probably  an  accurate  judgment,  and 
we  shall  find  Mrs.  Colhoun  kind  and  attentive  in  the  highest 
degree  to  her  husband's  cousin  in  his  sickness  at  Yale  as  well 
as  during  all  her  later  years. 

John  Ewing  Colhoun  was  a  man  of  note  in  his  day,  served 
in  the  Legislature  and  Privy  Council  of  South  Carolina,  and 
was  United  States  Senator  from  that  State  from  March  4, 
1801,  until  his  death  on  October  26,  1802.  He  had  been  elected 
to  the  Senate  as  a  Republican  over  the  prior  incumbent,  Jacob 
Read,  by  the  close  vote  of  75  to  73.  After  his  death,  his 
widow,  a  woman  of  means,  was  in  the  habit  of  at  least  often 
spending  the  summers, —  the  unhealthy  season  at  her  home, 

—  in  Newport,  Rhode  Island,  and  she  passed  also  at  least  two 
winters  (those  of  1805-1806  and  of  1806-1807)  in  that  favor- 
ite northern  resort  of  Southerners.12     It  may  possibly  be  that 
this  was  partly  for  the  advancement  of  the  education  of  her 
children.     She  had  two  sons,  James  Edward  (so  often  quoted 
by  Col.  Starke)  and  John  Ewing,  and  one  daughter,  Floride 
Bonneau  Colhoun,  who  was  born13  February  15,  1792,  and 
was  thus  ten  years  younger  than  her  future  husband. 

It  seems  that  Mrs.  Colhoun,  being  at  Newport  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1804  and  hearing  in  some  way  of  the  illness  of  her 
husband's  first  cousin,  John  Caldwell,  wrote  in  the  latter  part 
of  August  inviting  him  to  come  and  stay  with  her  in  Newport. 
Indeed,  she  had  at  some  prior  date  sent  a  like  verbal  invita- 
tion by  a  kinsman  named  Noble,  but  Calhoun  did  not  then 
know  where  she  was.  To  her  letter  he  replied  on  August  29th, 
saying  that  he  would  gladly  visit  her  after  commencement, 
which  was  to  be  on  September  12.  In  the  end  of  September, 

—  probably  after  he  had  sufficiently  recovered  from  his  illness, 

—  he  accordingly  went  to  Newport  and  stayed  with  Mrs.  Col- 

12  "Calhoun  Correspondence,"  Letters  to  Mrs.  Floride  Colhoun, passim, 
93-123. 

13  Mr.  Salley's  article,  ut  ante,  p.  154. 


EDUCATION  71 

houn  until  the  latter  part  of  October  or  very  possibly  until 
the  middle  of  November,  when  he  and  the  Colhoun  family 
sailed  South  on  the  same  vessel. 

Some  of  Calhoun's  impressions  of  the  time  are  interesting. 
As  he  wrote  to  Alexander  Noble  from  that  place  on  October 
15,  1804: 

Newport  is  quite  a  pleasant  place,  but  it  has  rather  an  old  ap- 
pearance which  gives  it  a  somewhat  melancholy  aspect.  I  have 
found  no  part  of  New  England  more  agreeable  than  the  island 
of  Rhode  Island.  Agreeably  situated,  well  cultivated  and  pos- 
sessed of  a  good  soil  and  delightful  climate,  it  seems  to  possess 
all  that  can  contribute  to  the  pleasure  of  man.  But  as  to  the 
civil  situation  of  this  State  and  its  manners,  customs,  moral  and 
religious  character,  it  seems  much  inferior,  as  far  as  my  informa- 
tion extends,  to  every  other  part  of  New  England.  To-morrow 
I  set  off  in  company  with  your  aunt 14  for  Boston.  We  expect 
to  make  a  short  stay,  not  more  perhaps  than  a  week.  I  expect 
to  return  to  Carolina  by  water,  and  in  the  same  vessel  with  your 
Aunt  and  family.  We  do  not  expect  to  sail  before  the  loth  or 
1 2th  of  next  month,  as  we  apprehend  from  accounts  received  from 
Charleston,  that  it  would  be  dangerous  to  be  there  before  the  mid- 
dle of  November. 

14  Mrs.  Colhoun  was  certainly  not  strictly  Alexander  Noble's  aunt,  and 
the  word  must  have  been  employed  in  the  loose  sense  in  which  it  often 
was  used.  I  presume  Noble  was  a  descendant/of  Sarah  Calhoun,  daughter 
to  John  C.  Calhoun's  uncle  William.  She  married  one  E.  P.  Noble  of 
Texas  (Col.  Starke's  "Sketch,"  foot-note  to  p.  78).  But  it  is  possible 
he  was  a  descendant  of  the  immigrant  Patrick's  sister,  Mary,  who  mar- 
ried one  John  Noble  (Mr.  Salley's  "Calhoun  Family,"  wf  ante,  p.  83).  In 
either  case,  he  and  Mrs.  Colhoun's  husband  were  cousins  in  some  degree. 


CHAPTER  IV 

FURTHER   TRAINING 

Studies  Law  —  The  Litchfield  Law  School  —  Growth  of 

Opinion. 

ARRIVING,  doubtless,  in  Charleston,  it  may  be  surmised  that 

\  Calhoun  soon  went  up  to  the  neighborhood  of  Abbeville  to  live 

\  and  to  make  further  progress  in  his  education.     A  little  more 

'than  four  years  of  the  term  of  seven  he  had  appointed  were 

gone,  and  a  course  of  study  in  law  still  lay  ahead  of  him. 

His  mother  had  died  about  the  time  he  went  to  Yale  in  1802  1 

and  it  seems  that  the  management  of  his  private  affairs  was 

in  the  hands  of  his  brother  James.2     Indeed, 4~  presnrnerrrts~ 

likely  that  the  family  estate  was  still  managed  as  a  whole.     He 

spent  the  ensuing  winter  of  1805  in  Abbeville,  studying  law 

With  George  Bowie,  "  an  eminent  and  leading  lawyer  on  the 

Western  Circuit,"  who  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  member 

of  his  profession  to  reside  in  Abbeville.3 

Calhoun  had  evidently  made  up  his  mind  from  the  start 
to  secure  the  best  education,  and  he  came  to  the  conclusion  to 
take  a  course  at  the  then  famous  law  school  maintained  at 
Litchfield,  Connecticut,  by  Judge  Tapping  Reeve,  of  the  Con- 
necticut Superior  Court,  and  James  Gould.  This  school  was 
known  far  and  wide  and  was  the  first  institution  in  the  United 
States  at  which  law  was  taught  to  established  classes  by  a 
system  of  lectures.  It  was  attended  by  students  from  various 
parts  of  the  country  and  resorted  to  by  Southerners  to  no  little 

1  This   is   the   time   of   her   death   distinctly   asserted   by   Col.    Starke 
("Sketch,"  p.  80).    Curiously  enough,  Calhoun  himself  once  wrote  that 
his  mother  died  when  he  was  sixteen  years  old  (i.e.,  in  1798).    Letter  to 
John  Rodgers  printed  in  "Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography," 
Vol.  VII  (1901),  p.  328. 

2  Letter  to  Mrs.  Floride  Colhoun  of  July  3,  1806. 

»J.  B.  O'Neall's  "Bench  and  Bar,"  &c.,  Vol.  II,  p.  207. 

72 


FURTHER  TRAINING  73 

extent.     Calhoun  found  some  of  his  home  acquaintance  already 
there  upon  his  arrivalj 

The  journey  North  was  made  by  him  under  most  favorable 
auspices.  Mrs.  Floride  Colhoun,  whose  acquaintance,  it  has 
been  shown,  he  had  made  at  New  Haven  the  preceding 
autumn,  was  this  year  going  North  by  land  in  her  own  car- 
riage, and  I  think  it  may  be  safely  assumed  that  she  had  been 
greatly  attracted  by  the  young  student  or  she  would  hardly 
have  asked  him,  as  she  did,  to  go  with  her  on  this  long  jour- 
ney, upon  which  she  took  her  three  children  and  we  can 
only  guess  how  many  servants  and  slaves  as  well.  Travel 
of  this  kind  in  one's  own  carriage  was  common  enough  in 
that  day  for  those  who  had  the  fortune  to  render  it  possible, 
and  it  must  have  been  an  admirable  education  as  to  everything 
appertaining  to  the  country  traversed.  Col.  Starke  is  our  chief 
informant  as  to  this  event  in  Calhoun' s  career,  and  he  in  turn 
derived  his  information  from  James  Edward  Colhoun,  one 
of  the  hostess'  sons,  who  still  remembered  the  trip  in  very 
advanced  life.  Col.  Starke  writes : 

The  wealthy  widow  must  have  made  a  stir  in  the  little  vil- 
lage [Abbeville]  *  as  she  passed  through  it  in  her  family  coach, 
drawn  by  four  splendid  gray  horses,  with  the  reins  held  by  an 
English  coachman  in  full  livery.  The  widow  took  with  her 
Floride,  then  in  her  thirteenth  year,  and  her  sons  John  and  James. 
At  the  request  of  John  Cal dwell,  for  whom  she  had  learned  to 
feel  a  warm  motherly  regard  mixed  with  admiration,  the  widow 
consented  to  make  a  detour  and  stop  a  day  or  two  at  Charlottes- 
ville,  in  Virginia.  The  young  Carolina  Republican  was  anxious 
to  see  Mr.  Jefferson,  then  on  a  visit  (he  was  President  at  the 
time)  to  Monticello. 

"  Cousin  John,"  said  my  informant,  "  went  out  to  Monticello 
to  call  upon  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  must  have  been  pleased  with  him, 
as  he  detained  him  until  the  following  morning.  The  conversa- 
tion between  the  two  men  is  said  to  have  lasted  until  midnight, 
which  was  an  unusual  occurrence  with  Mr.  Jefferson.  I  remem- 
ber hearing  that  Mr.  Jefferson,  coming  into  town  next  day,  spoke 

*  "  Sketch,"  pp.  83,  84.  Some  doubt  is  possibly  raised  as  to  the  fact  of 
their  passing  through  Abbeville,  by  a  letter  of  Calhoun's  to  Mrs.  Colhoun, 
dated  July  3,  1806,  in  which  he  compares  the  then  state  of  vegetation  with 
what  it  was  "  when  we  left  Charleston  last  year." 


74  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

about  John   C.   Calhoun  in  a  manner  quite  gratifying  to  my 
mother." 

Not  much  more  remains  to  tell  us  of  the  route  by  which 
they  travelled.  They  did  not  go  through  Wilmington,  as 
seems  to  have  been  their  original  intention,  and  afterward 
rather  congratulated  themselves  for  having  arrived  at  this 
conclusion, —  possibly  sickness  developed  there  during  the  sum- 
mer. The  young  man  wrote  Mrs.  Colhoun  on  August  12, 
1805,  that  here  was  another  argument  in  favor  of  her  con- 
viction that  "  all  is  for  the  best."  They  passed  through  Prince- 
ton, N.  J.,  and  Calhoun  wrote5  Mr.  DeSaussure,  his  law  in- 
structor of  a  few  years  hence  and  the  future  great  Chancellor 
of  South  Carolina,  an  account  of  the  latter 's  son  at  the  col- 
lege, with  which  the  far  distant  father  was  greatly  pleased. 

Calhoun  went  on  with  his  cousin's  family  to  Newport;  and 
in  July  proceeded  to  Litchfield,  returning  first  to  New  London, 
and  then  going  on  by  stage  by  way  of  Norwich  and  Hartford. 
On  the  last  ride  of  his  journey  he  was  fortunate  in  having  as 
a  fellow-passenger  his  instructor  to  be,  Judge  Reeve,  to  whom 
he  presented  a  letter  of  introduction  and  "  found  him  on  the 
passage  open  and  agreeable."  He  arrived  at  his  destination 
shortly  before  July  22,  on  which  day  he  wrote  to  his  late 
hostess  giving  her  an  account  of  his  journey  and  telling  her 
that  "  for  two  or  three  days  after  I  left  New  Port,  I  felt  much 
of  that  lonesome  Sensation,  which  I  believe  every  one  experi- 
ences, after  departing  from  those  with  whom  he  has  been  long 
intimate.  However  by  mingling  and  conversation  with  others, 
I  have  felt  it  much  diminished ;  and  by  a  few  days  application 
to  studies,  which  to  me  are  highly  interesting,  I  have  no  doubt 
it  will  be  entirely  removed."  And  in  an  earlier  part  of  the 
same  letter  he  wrote :  "  I  have  every  prospect  of  rendering 
my  residence  here  very  agreeable;  and  I  return,  I  assure  you, 
with  much  pleasure  to  the  cultivation  of  Blackstone's  acquaint- 
ance." \  Y  *^*p**jk  U 

It  seems  doubtful,  however,  whether ~fche?fyw.  ever  had  any 
eal  attraction  for  him,  unless  in  these  early  days  of  its  acqui- 

5  Letter  to  Mrs.  Floride  Colhoun,  Sept.  26,  1805. 


FURTHER  TRAINING  75 

sition,  and,  it  may  possibly  be  supposed,  in  some  of  its  great 
underlying  principles.  He  wrote  to  Mrs.  Colhoun  on  August 
12,  1805: 

I  feel  myself  much  absorbed  by  the  pursuit  of  legal  knowledge 
at  present.  In  fact,  to  take  the  course  of  law  lectures,  not  as 
they  usually  are,  but  as  they  ought  to  be,  I  find  I  must  devote 
almost  the  whole  of  my  time  to  that  purpose.  I  find  Mr.  Felder  * 
a  faithful  and  cheering  companion  in  the  dry  and  solitary  jour- 
ney through  the  exterior  fields  of  law.  We  both  console  our- 
selves, that  in  a  few  years  we  shall  acquire  a  pretty  thorough 
knowledge  of  our  profession;  and  then  our  time  shall  be  more 
at  our  own  disposals.  Perhaps  this  is  but  a  pleasant  dream ;  as 
every  succeeding  year  comes  loaded  with  its  own  peculiar  cares 
and  business^x*"*"^ 

To  his  cousin,  Andrew  Pickens,  also,  he  wrote  on  November 
24  of  the  same  year: 

You  do  me  an  injustice  in  supposing  your  letters  intrude  on 
my  studious  disposition;  I  am  not  so  much  in  love  with  law  as 
to  feel  indifferent  to  my  friends.  Many  things  I  study  for  the 
love  of  study  but  not  so  with  law.  I  can  never  consider  it, 
but  as  a  task  which  my  situation  forces  on  me.  I  therefore,  often 
lay  it  aside  for  the  more  delicious  theme  of  the  muses,  or  inter- 
esting pages  of  history;  and  always  throw  it  away  with  joy  to 
hear  from  my  Carolina  correspondents.  But,  I  confess,  from  my 
aversion  to  law,  I  draw  a  motive  to  industry.  It  must  be  done, 
and  the  sooner  the  better  is  often  my  logick. 

Litchfield  was  a  small  town  situated  in  the  western  part  of 
Connecticut,  north  of  the  central  line  of  the  State  and  not  far 
from  a  range  of  hills  that  approached  to  the  dignity  of  moun- 
tains. It  was  far  enough  from  the  sea  and  at  a  sufficient  ele- 
vation to  afford  in  its  northern  latitude  a  complete  change  of 
climate  to  those  who  came  up  from  the  far  South,  and  Cal- 
houn  not  infrequently  refers  to  this  element  in  his  new  sur- 
roundings as  well  as  to  the  "  very  high  open  situation  "  of 

6  His  room-mate,  John  M.  Felder,  who  had  graduated  with  him  at  Yale 
in  1804,  and  who  became  in  later  years  a  prominent  politician  in  South 
Carolina.  Letter  to  Mrs.  Colhoun  of  July  22,  1805.  O'Neall's  "Bench 
and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  325-336. 


76  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  district.  With  wide  streets  lined  by  the  spacious  mansions 
usual  in  those  days,  the  village  was  situated  on  some  of  the 
great  lines  of  traffic,  and  good  roads,  travelled  regularly  by 
stage-lines,  passed  through  it. 

Some  historic  interest  attached  to  Litchfield,  Governor 
Wolcott,  famous  even  among  the  men  of  Connecticut  for  his 
intense  federalism,  was  a  resident,  and  opposite  his  home  stood 
that  of  Judge  Reeve,  the  senior  member  of  the  firm  maintaining 
the  law  school.  The  latter's  wife  was  the  only  sister  of  the 
meteoric  Aaron  Burr,  who  had  for  a  time  studied  law  there,  but 
who  left  this  peaceful  pursuit  to  join  Arnold's  romantic  ex- 
pedition against  Quebec.  Washington  had  passed  through  the 
village  more  than  once  during  the  Revolution,  and  Lafayette 
and  Rochambeau  are  said  to  have  been  entertained  in  the  Reeve 
house.  It  is  curious,  too,  that  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe  and  her 
brother  were  born  in  Litchfield;  while  a  short  walk  would 
have  brought  the  young  Southerner  to  the  spot  where  John 
Brown  first  saw  the  light  of  day  in  the  adjoining  town. 

The  students  of  the  law-school  met  for  lecture  and  reci- 
tation in  a  small  building  adjoining  Mr.  Gould's  home.  It 
was  situate  on  North  Street,  and  the  "  legends  of  the  village  " 
are  said  to  centre  about  this  building  and  one  other  — "  the 
square-built  aggressive-looking  structure,  which  was  the  seat 
of  Miss  Sarah  Pierce's  no  less  famous  Young  Ladies'  Semi- 
nary." 7  The  two  schools  were  very  close  together,  and  there 
was  some  social  intercourse  between  them,  but  I  find  no  men- 
tion of  the  girls'  school  in  Calhoun's  writings. 

Calhoun  spent  more  than  a  year  at  Litchfield,  and  it  is  evi- 
dent that  he  devoted  himself  assiduously  to  study.  He  arrived 
there  about  July  22,  1805,  and  his  diploma,  dated  July  29,  1806, 
certifies  8  that  "  during  that  period  he  has  applied  himself  to 
no  other  regular  business,  and  has  attended  diligently  and 
faithfully  to  the  study  of  the  law."  But  he  evidently9  con- 

7 "Sketch  of  James  Gould,"  by  Simeon  E.  Baldwin,  in  Wm.  Draper 
Lewis's  "Great  American  Lawyers,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  455-87.  Charles  Burr 
Todd's  "  In  Olde  Connecticut,"  pp.  188-190.  Article  by  Charles  C.  Moore 
reprinted  from  "Law  Notes,"  in  Dwight  C.  Kilbourn's  "Bench  and  Bar 
of  Litchfield  Co.,  Conn.,"  pp.  181-183. 

8  Quoted  in  Col.  Starke's  "  Sketch,"  p.  84. 

»  Letter  to  Mrs.  Floridc  Colhoun,  dated  July  3,  1806. 


THE  LITCHFIELD  LAW  SCHOOLS 


Vol.  1,  p.  76 


FURTHER  TRAINING  77 

tinued  his  studies  and  attended  lectures  after  this  date  until 
August  20,  at  which  time  the  school  had  a  vacation  of  three 
weeks.  This  vacation  he  spent  with  Mrs.  Colhoun  at  New- 
port, but  was  back  again  at  Litchfield  by  September  n  and 
attended  that  fall  further  lectures,  to  which  he  referred  as 
being  a  "  part  of  the  course."  10  He  wrote  Mrs.  Colhoun  on 
that  date  that  the  lectures  had  commenced  again,  and  he  should 
not  be  able  to  get  down  to  the  Yale  commencement.  "  The 
present  subject,"  he  continued,  "  on  which  the  judge  is  lec- 
turing, is  an  important  one;  and  I  think  it  my  duty  to  make 
pleasure  yield  to  interest."  Precisely  how  long  he  remained 
to  take  these  lectures  cannot  be  ascertained.11 

Far  from  home  as  he  was,  he  found  himself  largely  alone, 
but  this  of  course  helped  to  turn  him  to  study.  He  wrote  on 
September  9,  1805  :  "  This  is  rather  an  out  of  the  way  place; 
and,  unless,  it  is  now  and  then  a  southerner  from  college,  we 
rarely  see  any  one  from  our  end  of  Union:"  and  then  he 
emphasized  the  fact  that  this  led  to  diligent  work.  He  was  in 
his  twenty-fourth  year  when  he  went  to  Litchfield,  and  at  the 
very  beginning  of  his  studies  (July  22,  1805)  he  wrote  of 
himself  and  his  room-mate,  John  M.  Felder,  that  "  both  being 
sensible  of  the  importance  of  application,  at  our  age,  have 
resolved  to  devote  our  time  to  solid  and  useful  studies." 

There  was  one  other  inducement  to  study  in  the  little  New 
England  village.  He  came  up  from  afar,  a  Republican  and 
supporter  of  the  existing  administration  of  federal  affairs  while 
the  bitterness  felt  in  Connecticut  against  Jefferson  and  all  his 
ilk  has  rarely  been  equalled  in  the  annals  of  political  hatred. 
Calhoun  seems  not  to  have  been  there  long  before  he  was 
aware  of  this  fact,  and  he  probably  knew  it  already  from  his 
two  years  at  Yale.  He  wrote  on  December  23,  1805 :  "  I 
take  little  amusement;  and  live  a  very  studious  life.  This 
place  is  so  much  agitated  by  party  feelings,  that  both  Mr. 

1°  Ibid.,  April  13,  1806. 

11  Calhoun  wrote  ("Autobiography,"  p.  6)  that  he  spent  eighteen  months 
at  Litchfield,  but  the  time  does  not  seem  to  have  been  so  long,  as  he 
writes  from  Charleston  on  December  22,  1806,  to  Mrs.  Colhoun,  after 
having  gone  home  by  land,  having  spent  "a  few  weeks"  at  Abbeville, 
and  having  been  in  Charleston  for  a  period  that  he  does  not  specify.  It 
has  been  already  seen  that  he  arrived  at  Litchfield  about  July  22,  1805. 


78  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Felder  and  myself  find  it  prudent  to  form  few  connections 
in  town.  This,  though  somewhat  disagreeable  is  not  unfavor- 
able to  our  studies." 

Many  years  later,  too,  he  said  12  that  he  had  in  these  early 
days  watched  the  management  of  public  affairs  in  New  Eng- 
land and  been  much  struck  with  "  the  working  of  the  odious 
party  machinery  "  of  the  caucus  system,  and  convinced  that  it 
would  in  the  end  supersede  the  authority  of  law  and  the 
Constitution.  But  despite  the  general  disaffection  in  New  Eng- 
land at  that  day,  he  is  said  to  have  "  never  doubted  that  the 
great  body  of  citizens  .  .  .  were  firmly  attached  to  the  Un- 


ion." 13 


In  regard  to  the  method  of  teaching  at  the  famous  school 
of  Litchfield,  the  text  has  made  it  plain  that  at  least  much  of 
the  instruction  was  by  means  of  lectures.  These  were  given 
in  Calhoun's  day  by  Judge  Reeve,  the  founder  of  the  school, 
and  James  Gould,  a  much  younger  man,  whom  Reeve,  in  1798, 
had  called  upon  to  aid  him.  Both  were  men  of  marked  ability ; 
and  Gould  is  thought  by  the  author  of  a  recent  sketch  to  have 
had  qualities  that  we  may  well  suppose  to  have  contributed 
largely  to  the  masterly  power  of  analysis  and  definite  state- 
ment shown  so  conspicuously  in  later  days  by  Calhoun.  Gould 
was  extremely  lucid  and  addicted  to  clear-cut  rules  and  defini- 
tions, so  that  each  student  could,  in  this  writer's  opinion, 
"  learn  from  him  the  faculty  of  stating  propositions  in  definite 
and  simple  form,  and  following  them  up  by  orderly  and  logical 
methods  of  explanation."  14 

Possibly  this  same  faculty  for  lucid  reasoning  was  the  qual- 
ity that  led  Gould  to  admire  the  common  law  and  its  intense 
logic  almost  as  extravagantly  as  Blackstone  had  done.  A  grad- 
uate of  the  school  in  1814  wrote  of  him  as  "  the  last  of  the 
Romans  of  the  Common  Law  lawyers,  the  impersonation  of 
its  genius  and  spirit.  It  was  indeed  in  his  eyes  the  perfection 

12  Speech  in  Senate;  Congressional  Debates,  Twenty-fourth  Congress, 
Second  Session,  Vol.  XIII,  Part  I,  1836-37,  pp.  301,  302. 

"  Measures  not  Men,"  &c.,  &c.,  ut  ante,  New  York,  1823,  p.  6. 

14  "  Sketch  of  Gould/'  by  Prof.  Baldwin,  in  Lewis's  "  Great  American 
Lawyers,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  455-487,  471,  472;  from  which  source  most  of  the 
facts  in  the  text  in  regard  to  the  Litchfield  Law  School  are  derived. 


FURTHER  TRAINING  79 

of  human  reason/' 15  But  this  belief,  however  prevalent  in 
Blackstone's  time,  was  hardly  so  widely  held  even  in  England 
in  Gould's  day  or  Calhoun's,  and  may  possibly  have  con- 
tributed to  the  dislike  of  the  law  that  a  young  man  from  the 
frontier  of  South  Carolina  early  in  the  nineteenth  century  was 
likely  to  feel  for  a  system  which,  while  often  almost  logical 
in  the  sense  of  the  school-men,  too  often  forgot  the  essential 
justice  of  the  question  at  issue  and  was  certainly  quite  un- 
fitted for  application  in  a  new  country. 

A  few  years  after  Calhoun's  time  the  regular  course  of 
study  at  the  school  was  completed  in  fourteen  months,  which 
period  included  two  vacations  of  four  weeks  each, —  one  in 
the  spring  and  one  in  the  autumn.  There  were  occasionally 
students  who  remained  longer,  but  not  many  stayed  more 
than  eighteen  months,  as  they  would  have  found  themselves 
merely  taking  for  the  second  time  lectures  that  they  had  al- 
ready heard.  The  number  of  students  in  1798  had  been  about 
forty,  and  the  fees  for  tuition  about  1816  to  1820  were  one 
hundred  dollars  for  the  first  year  and  sixty  dollars  for  a  sec- 
ond year.  The  students  were  expected  to  examine  and  study 
some  of  the  cases, —  then,  of  necessity,  almost  entirely  from 
English  reports, —  referred  to  by  the  lecturer,  and  quizzes  were 
given  at  this  later  time,  whether  such  was  the  case  during 
Calhoun's  stay  or  not.  Moot-courts  were  held  once  or  twice 
a  week,  with  Mr.  Gould  presiding,  and  here  of  course  the  future 
great  leader  in  the  Senate  had  again,  as  he  had  already  had  at 
Waddel's  school,  an  opportunity  to  cultivate  a  readiness  to 
think  on  his  legs.  The  "  Autobiography  "  emphasizes  the  great 
importance  of  this  part  of  the  training.  It  is  of  interest,  too, 
to  note  that  some  of  the  lectures,  which  covered  a  wide  field  of 
law,  were  upon  the  subjects  of  Constitutional  Law  and  the 
Legislation  of  Congress. 

The  same  authority  tells  us  that  Calhoun  "  acquired  great 
distinction  "  at  the  Litchfield  school,  and  an  anonymous  pam- 
phlet of  1823  16  adds  to  this  that  "  while  at  the  law  school,  Mr. 

15  The  words  in  italics  are  used  by  Blackstone  in  speaking  of  the  com- 
mon law. 
*6  "  Measures  not  Men,"  &c.,  ut  ante. 


80  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Calhoun  was  much  distinguished  by  his  talent  forextempo- 
raneous_jdfihating. ' '  ^  He  by  no  means,  however,  "devoted 
himself  exclusively  to  law,  but  the  politics  of  the  world  as  well 
as  the  smaller  squabbles  in  his  part  of  South  Carolina  had 
their  share  of  attention.  It  is  of  interest  to  find  him  writing 
to  a  cousin  in  one  letter  18  congratulating  him  upon  admission 
to  the  bar  and  then  launching  out,  evidently  with  reference  to 
some  faction  at  his  home,  that  "  it  is  high  time  for  those 
selfish  usurpers  on  the  publick  opinion  to  be  painted  in  their 
true  light.  .  .  .  For  my  part,  I  never  could  think  with  com- 
placency of  some  upstarts  in  that  part  of  the  State,  whose 
thoughts  and  lives  have  been  consumed  in  drawing  down  char- 
acters whose  actions  have  afforded  volumes  of  proof  of  in- 
tegrity and  wisdom."  And  then  he  soon  starts  off  on  a  new 
subject  and  writes :  "  War  between  France  and  Austria  is 
inevitable,  Bonapart's  speech  before  the  senate  on  his  depar- 
ture from  Paris  to  take  command  of  the  army  on  the  Rine, 
and  the  Austrian  manifesto  are  both  published.  The  former 
full  of  confidence  in  victory;  the  latter  apparently  moderate, 
but  resolute.  What  will  be  the  event  time  alone  can  unfold; 
but  I  distrust  the  fortune  of  the  allies.19  The  period  is  cer- 
tainly eventful." 

Though  keeping  aloof  from  social  intercourse  at  Litchfield, 
he  yet  wrote  20  of  it  as  "  among  the  most  pleasant  towns  I 
ever  have  been  in,"  and  took  part  in  some  of  the  amusements 
of  the  new  climate.  On  January  19,  1806,  he  wrote:  "We 
have  excellent  sleighing  here.  I  was  out  last  evening  for  the 
first  time  this  season;  and  found  it  very  agreeable.  It  is  a 
mode  of  conveyance  that  the  people  of  this  state  are  very  fond 
of."  The  climate,  so  different  from  that  of  his  home,  receives 

17  A  biographical  sketch  reprinted  from  the  "  United  States  Telegraph  " 
in  the  Charleston  "  Mercury  "  of  May  10,  1831,  tells  us  that  the  students 
at  Litchfield  formed  a  debating  society,  which  held  open  meetings,  and  that 
these  were  at  times  of  great  interest  to  the  inhabitants.    But  I  cannot 
suppose  the  further  statement  that  they  selected  for  debate  "the  most 
agitating  political  questions  of  the  day"  can  be  relied  upon. 

18  Letter  to  Andrew  Pickens,  dated  November  24,  1805.    The  reference 
therein  to  factions  at  home  is  naturally  not  clear. 

19  The  battle  of  Austerlitz  on  December  2,  1805,  ended  the  Austrian  part 
of  the  war. 

2°  Letter  to  Mrs.  Colhoun,  dated  June  2,  1806. 


FURTHER  TRAINING  81 

frequent  mention.  The  fierce  colds  of  winter  seem  to  have 
been  distasteful  to  him,  but  the  northern  summers,  so  often 
as  they  were  moderate,  evidently  suited  him  well.  As  late 
as  July  3,  of  1806,  he  wrote:  "I  have  never  experienced  so 
cool  a  summer  as  this  has  been.  We  have  not  had  a  day 
disagreeably  warm."  He  apparently  maintained  a  fairly  wide 
correspondence  with  friends  in  his  own  State,  and  is  to  be 
found  occasionally  expressing  that  regret  that  those  far  ab- 
sent are  pretty  sure  to  complain  of  now  and  then  at  the  lapse 
of  a  long  period  without  letters  from  home. 

Calhoun's  residence  in  the  northern  climate  seems  to  have 
been  decidedly  beneficial  to  his  health,  and  it  is  not  impossible 
that  the  hope  of  this  was  in  part  the  moving  cause  that  led  to 
his  selection  of  New  Haven  and  Litchfield.  He  refers  in  sev- 
eral letters  to  the  excellent  health  he  was  enjoying,  which 
seems  to  have  been  interrupted  only  by  an  occasional  cold 
and  the  one  serious  illness  he  had  about  the  time  of  his  gradu- 
ation at  Yale.  The  "  unhealthy  season  "  at  home  was  often 
a  sort  of  nightmare  in  those  days;  but  he  himself  escaped  it 
entirely  for  four  or  five  years.21  His  final  return  to  South 
Carolina  was  made  late  in  1806,  and  on  October  i,  1807,  after 
having  spent  a  summer  at  home,  he  was  able  to  write  Mrs. 
Colhoun  from  Abbeville :  "  I  have  not  had  better  health  for 
many  years. " 

With  this  lady,  his  intimacy  had  grown  very  close,  and 
she  had  evidently  come  to  rely  on  him  a  good  deal,  consulting 
him  as  to  an  instructor  for  her  children  and  on  similar  mat- 
ters. He  wrote  of  her  as  being  "  almost  a  mother  "  to  him, 
and  felt  very  strongly  her  kindness.  At  one  time,  when  his 
brother  James  had  written  that,  owing  to  the  closing  out  of 
his  own  business,  he  would  "  find  it  some  what  difficult  to 
make  the  summer  remittance  to  me,"  Calhoun  wrote  asking 
Mrs.  Colhoun  whether  she  could  make  it  convenient  to  supply 
him  until  the  fall,  and  added  that  he  would  "  be  able  to  return 
it  during  the  course  of  the  winter.  Two  hundred  dollars  will 

21  He  was  at  Abbeville,  studying  law  with  Mr.  Bowie,  during  the  winter 
of  1805,  but  appears  to  have  been  in  the  North,  either  at  New  Haven  or 
Litchfield,  every  summer  and  autumn,  beginning  with  1802, —  or  at  least 
1803,— and  ending  with  1806. 


82  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

answer  my  present  want."  22  I  know  of  nothing  to  show 
whether  the  loan  was  actually  made  or  not,  but  their  inti- 
macy was  such  as  to  make  it  most  probable. 

Mrs.  Colhoun  was  evidently  a  religious  woman  and  sev- 
eral times  wrote  Calhoun  upon  the  subject  of  religion.  He 
shared  her  feelings,  and  is  to  be  found  at  this  period  of  life 
very  ready  to  discover  the  hand  of  the  Deity  in  sickness  and 
other  ills  suffered  by  those  members  of  poor  humanity  of  whose 
course  of  action  he  does  not  approve.  On  March  3,  1806, 
he  wrote  her : 

I  receive  with  gratitude  your  friendly  advice  and  anxious  solici- 
tude for  my  welfare  on  the  all  important  subject  of  religion. 
You  do  me  injustice  to  apprehend  that  I  should  receive  it  other- 
wise than  a  mark  of  the  purest  and  highest  friendship.  For 
surely  we  can  give  no  higher  evidence  of  our  friendship,  than  in 
endeavoring  to  promote  the  best  interest  of  the  subject  of  it. 
Be  assured  that  whatever  you  may  say  on  this  head  will  be  kindly 
received.23 

Several  other  references  to  religion  are  to  be  found  in  his 
letters  to  her.  In  1806,  he  read  in  a  New  York  paper  a  state- 
ment from  some  one  in  Charleston  that  a  "  very  great  serious- 
ness and  attention  to  religion  had  diffused  itself  over  that  city. 
What  a  happy  change/'  so  he  goes  on  to  Mrs.  Colhoun,  "  to 
that  place ;  which  in  every  thing  was  so  extremely  corrupt ;  and 
particularly  so  inattentive  to  every  call  of  religion.  I  hope, 
and  think  it  probable,  that  this  change  will  extend  itself  from 
the  city  to  the  country.  Surely  no  people  ever  so  much 
needed  a  reform  as  those  in  the  parishes  near  Charleston." 

Not  many  months  passed,  however,  until  information  more 
to  be  relied  upon  than  that  of  newspapers  came  to  hand,  and 
he  had  to  inform  Mrs.  Colhoun  that  a  Southern  visitor  told 
him  that  "  the  accounts  of  the  revival  of  religion  in  Charles- 
ton which  appeared  in  the  papers  some  time  since  was  un- 
founded. Every  friend  to  religion  and  that  place  must  regret 

22  Letter  of  July  3,  1806. 

23  In  later  days  her  religious  ministrations  seemed  to  a  bright  observer 
rather  burdensome.     "The   First   Forty  Years   of  Washington   Society," 
by  Mrs.  Samuel  Harrison  Smith,  pp.  153,  159,  160;  and  see  infra,  p.  283. 


FURTHER  TRAINING  83 

it."  And  in  another  letter,  a  year  or  two  later,  after  his  re- 
turn home,  when  mentioning  the  good  health  prevailing  that 
summer  around  Abbeville,  he  refers  to  the  same  general  subject 
as  follows : 

We  ought  to  feel  thankful  for  this ;  more  especially  as  in  some 
parts  of  the  state  it  is  said  to  be  uncommonly  sickly.  The 
stranger's  fever  is  said  to  be  unusually  fatal  this  year  in  Charles- 
ton. Every  paper  from  there  brings  a  long  catalogue  of  deaths. 
This  is  in  part  no  doubt  to  be  attributed  to  the  nature  of  the  cli- 
mate ;  but  a  much  greater  part  is  owing  to  the  misconduct  of  the 
inhabitants ;  and  may  be  considered  as  a  curse  for  their  intemper- 
ance and  debaucheries.24 

He  maintained  also  more  or  less  correspondence  with  his 
brother-in-law  and  former  teacher,  Dr.  Waddel.  This  gentle- 
man, whose  real  function  on  earth  was  surely  the  teaching  of 
boys,  seems  to  have  forever  had  a  hankering  after  the  pulpit. 
In  1806  25  he  had  a  charge  and  wrote  Calhoun  that  his  preach- 
ing had  had  much  effect  among  his  then  congregation,  adding : 
"  I  never  before  had  so  much  encouragement  to  labour  in  the 
gospel  as  there  at  present."  Calhoun  tells  his  correspondent 
that  Waddel's  "  hopes  at  his  other  congregation  were  flattering; 
but  owing  to  an  unhappy  dissension  between  two  of  its  princi- 
pal members  his  success  has  not  been  so  great." 

An  effort  has  been  made  on  a  preceding  page  to  show  what 
influence  Calhoun's  surroundings  and  the  course  of  events  dur- 
ing his  early  life  in  the  upper  country  of  South  Carolina  were 
likely  to  have  on  his  future  political  theories.  What,  if  any- 
thing, may  we  suppose  to  have  been  added  to  these  by  his  resi- 
dence of  four  years  in  New  England  in  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  when  he  was  still  in  the  plastic  time  of 
youth?  This  is  not  the  place  to  argue  as  to  the  then  prevail- 
ing political  beliefs  of  that  section,  but  candid  history  hardly 
questions  to-day  that  allegiance  to  the  federal  government 
was  a  very  weak  strand  in  their  composition.  The  leading 
federalists  of  the  East,  aristocrats  to  the  heart,  were  all  aghast 
at  the  triumph  of  the  rag-tag  democracy  —  as  they  thought 

24  Letters  of  April  13  and  June  2,  1806  and  October  i,  1807. 

25  Letter  of  Calhoun  to  Mrs.  Colhoun,  March  3. 


84  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

it, —  of  Jefferson  in  1800,  and  could  not  become  reconciled  to 
the  control  of  the  federal  government  by  a  party  with  which 
they  had  no  opinion  in  common  and  whose  triumph  had 
snatched  from  their  hands  for  the  time  being  that  control  of 
the  governmental  machinery  in  their  own  interest,  which  they 
thought  a  sacred  birthright. 

Even  so  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  new  century,  not  a  few 
of  their  leaders  meditated  the  breaking  up  of  the  Union,  and, 
as  the  Jeffersonians  tended  more  and  more  against  England  in 
the  giant  contest  of  the  day,  this  feeling  grew  steadily  stronger 
among  them,  until  they  committed  an  almost  overt  act  in  the 
assembling  of  the  Hartford  Convention  and  its  sending  of  a 
delegation  to  Washington  to  interview  the  heavily  burdened 
President.  The  actual  design  of  these  emissaries  has  been 
guarded  from  public  knowledge  with  such  jealous  secrecy  that 
it  will  never  be  capable  of  demonstration,  but  we  may  at  least 
safely  say  that  the  delegation  bore  with  it  a  strong  aroma  of 
ultimate  secession  and  certainly  did  not  travel  to  Washington 
in  order  to  offer  a  "  loyal  support "  to  President  Madison. 
The  sudden  arrival  of  the  treaty  of  peace  and  of  the  news  of 
Jackson's  triumph  at  New  Orleans  ended  their  plans  and  made 
the  emissaries  ridiculous.  Ample  evidence  to  prove  in  out- 
line the  long  history  of  this  New  England  secession  movement 
has  survived  the  holocausts  of  their  past  correspondence,  which 
these  worthy  gentlemen  found  it  advisable  to  indulge  in  dur- 
ing later  years,  at  a  time  when  their  earlier  views  had  come  to 
be  highly  unfashionable ;  and  it  is  only  among  the  very  partisan 
or  the  ignorant  that  these  truths  are  questioned. 

Of  course,  all  this  New  England  opinion  must  have  come 
to  Calhoun's  ears.  Doubtless,  with  his  religious  feelings,  he 
went  to  church  among  them,  and  their  divines  were,  as  has 
been  seen  more  than  once  in  other  latitudes,  not  among  the 
slowest  to  express  aloud  opinions  of  the  sort  popular  among 
their  parishioners.  It  has  been  shown  already  that  he  largely 
avoided  the  making  of  friends  in  Litchfield  because  the  place 
was  "  so  much  agitated  by  party  feelings."  But,  more  than 
this,  several  of  his  instructors  were  men  of  most  ultra  opinions 
in  regard  to  political  matters,  and  it  will  soon  be  shown  that 


FURTHER  TRAINING  85 

one  of  the  teachers  at  the  law-school  was  directly  concerned 
in  the  plots  and  plans  to  have  New  England  break  away  from 
the  Union.  Dwight,  too, —  the  President  of  Yale  during  Cal- 
houn's  years  there, —  had  held  the  general  Federalist  views 
very  strongly,  and  was  quite  irreconcilable  with  the  growth 
of  Republican  opinion  and  power;  and  it  has  been  seen  that 
he  and  Calhoun  had  one  political  discussion  in  the  class-room  at 
Yale.  Can  any  candid  person  doubt  that  there  were  other 
such  discussions,  or  that  the  professor's  opinions  often  came 
out  in  his  lectures  and  explanations? 

There  is,  however,  one  case  plainer  yet.  Tapping  Reeve,  the 
head  of  the  law  school  that  Calhoun  attended,  was  in  private 
life  a  most  estimable  person,  but  his  views  upon  governmental 
affairs, —  particularly  as  to  the  nature  of  our  Union, —  were 
by  no  means  such  as  New  England  has  taught  since  she  re- 
covered her  full  share  in  the  control  of  the  federal  machinery, 
and  especially  since  1861-1865.  His  partner,  too,  James 
Gould,  was  a  strong  Federalist  and  had  married  a  daughter 
of  Uriah  Tracy,  another  of  the  irreconcilables  and  concerned 
in  the  separatist  plans.  I  know  of  no  evidence  that  Gould 
took  any  active  part  in  the  then  plans  of  the  New  England 
leaders,  but  Reeve,  while  a  member  of  the  Connecticut  Su- 
preme Court,  wrote  for  a  newspaper  such  bitter  criticism  of  the 
federal  administration  that  he  was  selected  by  the  instigator 
of  the  federal  prosecutions  for  libel  of  that  day  as  one  of  those 
to  be  included  in  the  well-known  indictments.26 

Moreover  in  1804,  only  a  year  and  a  half  before  Calhoun 
came  up  to  the  Law  School,  Reeve  had  written  a  confidential 
letter27  to  Uriah  Tracy  (his  partner's  father-in-law)  in  re- 

26  The  facts  in  the  text  are  taken  in  part  from  Prof.  Baldwin's  "  Sketch 
of  James  Gould,"  in  Lewis's  "  Great  American  Lawyers,"  ut  supra,  pp. 
458,  471,  &c.    Jefferson,  in  accordance  with  his  course  as  to  cases  under 
the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws,  disapproved  of  the  prosecution  of  Judge 
Reeve  and  ordered  a  nolle  entered.    Reeve's  prosecution  cannot,  as  is  often 
stated,  have  been  based  on  the  Sedition  Act,  for  that  statute  expired  by 
its  terms  on  March  3,  1801.     It  must  have  been  based  on  an  effort  of  its 
originators  to  revive  the  federal  doctrine  of  a  common  law  of  the  United 
States.     See  U.  S.  v.  Hudson  and  Goodwin,  7  Cranch,  32. 

27  Printed  at  large  in  Henry  C.  Lodge's  "  Life  and  Letters  of  George 
Cabot,"  pp.  442,  443.     Mr.  Lodge's  book  is  a  mine  of  information  as  to 
the  then  New  England  plans  for  breaking  up  the  Union,  and  the  author 


86  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

gard  to  the  subject  of  disunion  and  discussing  what  were  the 
proper  steps  to  take  on  the  part  of  their  friends  in  order  to 
bring  about  a  preparedness  for  the  coming  separation.  "  I 
have  seen,"  wrote  Judge  Reeve,  "  many  of  our  friends ;  and 
all  that  I  have  seen,  and  most  that  I  have  heard  from,  believe 
that  we  must  separate,  and  that  this  is  the  most  favorable  mo- 
ment. The  difficulty  is,  how  is  this  to  be  accomplished?  I 
have  heard  of  only  three  gentlemen,  as  yet,  who  appear  un- 
decided upon  the  subject." 

If  the  reader  will  now  recall  the  fact  that  during  Calhoun's 
time  at  the  school,  or  a  very  few  years  later,  either  the  au- 
thor of  this  letter  or  his  partner,  James  Gould,  delivered  regu- 
lar lectures  in  the  Litchfield  School  upon  the  subjects  of  Con- 
stitutional Law  and  the  Legislation  of  Congress,  I  do  not 
think  he  can  doubt  that  the  lectures  must  have  been  largely 
tinctured  by  the  opinions  that  the  letter  shows  Reeve  to  have 
held.  What  influence  upon  Calhoun  such  views  may  have 
had  is  possibly  in  some  respects  uncertain.  It  is  conceivable 
that  he  was  simply  revolted  at  the  violence  and  passion  of 
the  Federalists  and  their  wild  desire  to  shatter  the  Union  for 
so  petty  a  cause  as  a  political  defeat,  which  had  certainly  as 
yet  brought  no  oppression  upon  them;  but  it  may  at  least  be 
said  with  entire  confidence  that  if  in  his  earlier  days  at  home 
he  had  imbibed  strong  beliefs  as  to  the  rights  of  the  States  in 
our  system,  his  experience  of  New  England  opinion  between 
1802  and  1806  during  his  Lehrjahre  could  not  but  have  con- 
vinced him  that  the  same  beliefs  were  widespread  throughout 
the  country  and  especially  prevalent  in  the  opposite  end  of  the 
Union  from  that  to  which  he  belonged.28 

And  we  shall  find  this  opinion  confirmed  and  strengthened 

admits  (p.  440)  what,  of  course,  candor  required  him  to  admit, —  that  they 
looked  upon  the  Union  as  an  experiment  and  the  separation  of  the  States 
as  merely  a  question  of  policy.  How  the  historian  should  regret  that 
George  Cabot  (and  doubtless  many  another  ultra  Federalist  whose  views 
have  since  grown  unpopular)  "  shortly  before  his  death  made  an  almost 
complete  destruction  of  all  his  letters  and  papers."  (Mr.  Lodge's 
"  Preface.")  See  also  Henry  Adams's  "  New  England  Federalism,"  passim. 
28  It  is  amazing  to  find  a  learned  writer,  when  speaking  of  Calhoun's 
days  at  Yale  and  Litchfield,  dispose  of  the  subject  in  the  few  words :  Thus 
Calhoun  "  received  his  early  training  from  staunch  Federalists  in  the 
Union  State  of  Connecticut." 


FURTHER  TRAINING  87 

by  the  events  of  the  following  years.  As  early  as  the  end  of 
1808  the  threat  from  New  England  of  a  division  of  the  States 
was  spoken  of  and  doubtless  widely  known  in  South  Caro- 
lina.29 At  this  date,  Calhoun  was  already  embarked  in  public 
affairs,  as  a  member  of  the  State  Legislature,  of  course  watch- 
ing from  afar  the  debates  in  Congress  and  the  conduct  of 
public  men  and  necessarily  familiar  with  a  matter  of  such 
boundless  importance.  And  in  the  autumn  of  1810  he  was 
elected  a  member  of  the  Twelfth  Congress;  so  it  may  surely 
be  assumed  that  he  read  somewhere  the  extravagant  secession 
speech  30  of  Josiah  Quincy  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on 
January  14,  1811.  He  next  served  in  the  House  with  this 
same  Quincy  during  one  Congress  and  had  some  acquaintance 
with  him.31  Quincy  was  a  man  of  marked  ability,  very  out- 
spoken and  so  determined  a  fighter  that  Washington  Irving 32 
described  him  as  walking  up  and  down  the  lobby  "  like  a  lion 
lashing  his  sides  with  his  tail,"  while  the  House  debated  points 
of  order  raised  against  him. 

Scenes  and  events  such  as  these  were  not  likely  to  eradicate  \ 
from  Calhoun's  mind  the  impression  he  had  imbibed  during  > 
his  years  of  study  in  Connecticut.  Whatever  their  immediate  ^ 
effect  on  him  may  have  been,  when  he  became  in  time  an  ultra 
believer  in  States'  rights  he  was  surely  only  following  the  t 
lead  for  which  the  circumstances  of  his  home  in  early  days,  / 
his  observation  of  New  England  opinion  at  Yale  and  at  Litch-  ) 
field  and  his  acquaintance  with  their  public  men  in  Congress  a  ' 
few  years  later  had  steadily  ripened  his  mind.  / 

26  See  the  letters  of  Chancellor  DeSaussure,  a  strong  Federalist,  to 
Josiah  Quincy  of  December  7,  1808,  and  January  21,  1809,  printed  in 
Edmund  Quincy's  "  Life  of  Josiah  Quincy,"  pp.  189-91. 

30  Speaking  to  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  the  Territory  of  Orleans  as 
a  State,  Quincy  said :     "  If  this  bill  passes,  it  is  my  deliberate  opinion 
that  it  is  virtually  a  dissolution  of  this  Union ;  that  it  will  free  the  States 
from  their  moral  obligation,  and,  as  it  will  be  the  right  of  all,  so  it  will 
be  the  duty  of  some,  definitely  to  prepare  for  a  separation,  amicably  if 
they  can,  violently  if  they  must."     Annals  of  Congress,  Eleventh  Congress, 
Third   Session,    1810-11,  pp.   525-40.     This,  and  other  parts  of  Quincy's 
speech,  were  printed  in  the  Charleston  "  Courier"  of  January  31,  1811. 

31  Quincy's  "  Quincy,"  pp.  242,  256. 
82  Ibid.,  p.  236. 


CHAPTER  V 

LEGAL  CAREER 

Completes  Law  Studies  with  Chancellor  DeSaussure  — 
Great  Success  at  the  Bar  —  Love  and  Marriage  —  Correspon- 
dence —  Gives  up  the  Law. 

THE  exact  time  at  which  Calhoun  left  Litchfield  to  return 
home  cannot  be  ascertained.  It  must,  however,  have  been 
quite  a  little  later  than  September  n,  1806,  for  on  that  date 
he  wrote  from  Litchfield  to  Mrs.  Colhoun  that  he  was  still  at- 
tending some  important  lectures  at  the  Law  School.  He  went 
by  stage  to  Philadelphia  and  then  proceeded  the  rest  of  the 
way  alone  on  horseback;  but  the  account  of  his  journey  and 
of  his  doings  about  this  time  can  best  be  given  from  his  let- 
ter of  December  22,  1806.  On  that  date,  he  wrote  Mrs.  Col- 
houn from  Charleston  as  follows : 

DEAR  MADAM,  Sensible  that  you  are  always  desirous  of  hear- 
ing from  me  I  can  scarcely  excuse  myself  in  not  writing  till  the 
present  time.  The  day  before  I  left  Litchfield,  I  answered  your 
last,  in  which  I  mentioned  my  determination  to  set  out  in  a  few 
days  for  Carolina  by  land.  I  proceeded  to  Philadelphia  in  the 
stage,  where  I  purchased  a  horse  and  finished  the  remainder  of 
the  Journey  on  horse  back,  through  what  is  generally  called  the 
uper  rout.  In  a  tour  so  long  without  a  companion,  and  a  stranger 
to  the  road  I  necessarily  experienced  many  solitary  hours.  My 
reward  was  the  perpetual  gratification  of  curiosity  in  passing 
through  a  country  entirely  new  to  me,  romantick  in  a  high  degree, 
and  abounding  with  many  objects  of  considerable  novelty.  On 
my  arrival  in  Carolina  I  was  happy  to  find  all  my  friends  and  re- 
lations well,  with  only  a  few  instances  of  slight  fall  fevers. 
After  spending  a  few  weeks  in  Abbeville  I  returned  to  this  place, 
where  I  expect  to  continue  in  Mr.  DeSaussure's  law  office  till 
June;  at  which  time  I  expect  to  retire  to  the  uper  country  for 
health;  as  it  will  not  be  safe  for  me  with  my  northern  habit  to 


LEGAL  CAREER  89 

continue  in  Charleston.  Your  acquaintances  here,  as  far  as  I 
know,  are  well.  .  .  .  Since  my  arrival  here  I  have  been  very 
much  of  a  recluse.  I  board  with  the  French  protestant  minister 
Mr.  Detarguey  in  Church  Street.  It  is  a  quiet  home  and  an- 
swers my  purpose  well. 

He  remained,  doubtless,  according  to  his  intention,  a  student 
with  Mr.  DeSaussure  until  June,  1807,  in  which  month  he 
went  to  Abbeville  village,  meaning  to  practise  law,  and  was 
admitted  to  the  bar  after  examination  at  the  next  term  of 
the  Supreme  Court  at  Columbia.1  It  would  be  interesting 
to  know  the  course  of  study  he  followed  with  the  future  great 
Chancellor  of  South  Carolina,  but  it  may  possibly  be  surmised 
to  have  had  reference  mainly  to  the  special  peculiarities  of  the 
system  of  law  in  his  own  State.  He  was  doubtless  already 
well  grounded  in  general  principles,  but  it  was  necessary  for 
him  to  learn  also  how  these  were  applied  and  their  variations 
in  the  jurisdiction  where  he  intended  to  reside.  Therefore,  the 
statutes  of  South  Carolina  were  probably  his  main  study,  and 
possibly  he  was  aided  by  his  instructor  in  securing  some  knowl- 
edge of  what  is  known  among  lawyers  as  "  practice," —  the 
method  in  which  suits  are  instituted  and  brought  to  trial  and 
final  conclusion.  He  was  apparently  not  admitted  to  practise 
in  the  chancery  courts  until  i8o8,2  the  year  after  his  admission 
to  the  ordinary  courts. 

Calhoun  did  not  continue  long  at  the  bar  and  evidently  always 
disliked  the  profession;  but  none  the  less  had  a  marked  degree 
of  success.  O'Neall 3  writes : 

...  He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1807  and  opened  his  office 
at  Abbeville;  he  practised  there,  and  at  Newberry,  and  I  pre- 
sume in  the  other  adjoining  districts.  .  .  .  His  reputation  was  ex- 
traordinary for  so  young  a  man.  He  was  conceded,  as  early  as 
1809,  to  be  the  most  promising  young  lawyer  in  the  upper  coun- 

1  Col.  Starke's  "  Sketch,"  p.  85.    His  name  does  not  appear  in  O'Neall's 
"Bench  and  Bar,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  606  and  599  in  the  lists  of  those  admitted 
to  the  bar,  but  in  the  separate  sketch  of  Calhoun  in  ibid.  p.  284,  he  is  said 
to  have  been  admitted  in  1807.     See  also  Jenkins's  "Life,"  p.  32,  to  the 
same  effect.    This  early  writer  bears  out  the  surmise  in  the  text  as  to  the 
special  studies  followed  by  Calhoun  under  Chancellor  DeSaussure.    Ibid. 

2  Starke's  "  Sketch,"  p.  86. 

a  "  Bench  and  Bar,"  Vol.  II,  p.  284. 


90  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

try.  Chancellor  Bowie  of  Alabama,  who  lived  at  Abbeville  and 
had  a  fine  opportunity  of  knowing  Mr.  Calhoun's  early  reputa- 
tion as  a  lawyer,  says :  £"  With  the  members  of  the  bar  as  well 
as  with  the  people,  he  stood  very  high  in  his  profession.  Per- 
haps no  lawyer  in  the  State  ever  acquired  so  high  a  reputation  from 
his  first  appearance  at  the  bar  as  he  did.  .  .  .  The  business  of 
the  court  was  nearly  evenly  divided  between  himself,  Mr.  Yancey 
and  my  brother  George." 

With  such  marked  success  and  with  his  mental  traits,  it  is 
not  easy  to  understand  why  the  law  was  so  distasteful  to  £al- 
houn.  It  has  been  seen  that  such  was  the  caseTeven  while 
he  was  a  student,  and  his  letters  while  he  was  in  the  full  tide 
of  success  at  the  bar  contain  indications  of  the  same  feeling. 
He  evidently  felt  strongly  his  responsibility  to  clients,  but  this 
served  only  to  add  to  the  irksomeness  of  his  exacting  work. 

There  was  another  cause :  He  was  in  love  during  these  his 
early  years  at  the  bar,  and  the  object  of  his  passion,  Floride 
Colhoun,  the  only  daughter  of  his  friend  and  connection,  Mrs. 
John  Ewing  Colhoun,  lived  a  part  of  the  year  far  away  in 
Newport  and  the  rest  of  the  time  at  her  mother's  plantation 
near  Bonneau's  Ferry  in  South  Carolina, —  not  much  less  than 
two  hundred  miles  from  Abbeville, —  or  still  further  away  in 
Charleston.  Naturally,  the  young  lover  chafed  at  his  enforced 
absence. 

The  story  of  Calhoun's  love  and  approaching  marriage  can 
best  be  told  from  his  own  letters,  and  they  will  show,  if  proof 
be  needed  of  so  patent  a  fact,  that  a  man  addicted  in  later 
life  to  the  clearest  and  possibly  coldest  of  reasoning  can  in 
youth  be  ardent  enough  as  a  lover.  The  same  letters,  too, 
will  tell  us  something  of  his  practice  at  the  bar  and  give 
glimpses  of  his  entrance  upon  public  affairs,  in  the  glory  of  his 
springtime  of  life.  The  letters  are  all  but  one  addressed  to  his 
future  mother-in-law,  to  whom  he  evidently  first  spoke  upon 
the  subject  of  his  love.  He  corresponded  also  later  with  Miss 
Colhoun,  but  his  letters  to  her,  with  a  single  exception,  have 
been  lost. 

Floride  Colhoun,  the  object  of  his  passion,  was  the  daughter 
of  his  deceased  first  cousin,  John  Ewing  Colhoun,  and  was 


LEGAL  CAREER  91 

ten  years  his  junior.  She  was  born  February  15,  1792.  Col. 
Starke,  referring  to  about  the  time  when  she  was  seventeen 
years  old,  writes  4  that  she  "  is  represented  as  being  beautiful 
in  form  and  features,  graceful  and  winning  in  manner  and 
address.  Being  half  French,  she  manifested  the  cheerful 
vivacity  of  her  Huguenot  ancestry,  as  well  as  those  more  solid 
qualities  for  which  they  were  distinguished."  Calhoun  had  of 
course  seen  her  often  as  a  child, —  when  he  was  studying  at 
Yale  and  at  Litchfield  and  stayed  in  her  mother's  house, —  in 
the  years  from  1804  to  the  end  of  1806.  She  was  then,  how- 
ever, only  twelve  to  fourteen  years  of  age,  and  his  letters  of 
this  date  to  the  mother  often  send  love  to  Floride  and  other 
young  members  of  the  family,  or  she  is  even  included  simply 
in  the  words  "  love  to  the  children." 

The  friendship  between  Calhoun  and  the  mother  was  kept 
up  after  Calhoun  started  out  at  the  bar,  and  he  spent  a  time 
at  their  plantation  at  Bonneau's  Ferry  in  the  spring  of  i8o8.5 
In  the  spring  of  1809,  again,  his  correspondence  shows  that 
he  had  wanted  to  visit  them,  but  was  unable  to  do  so  because 
of  the  pressure  of  his  law  practice.  In  the  summer,  however, 
he  was  their  guest  again,  and  shortly  after  returning  home 
wrote  to  the  mother  declaring  his  passion.  The  letter  clearly 
shows  that  he  had  already  spoken  of  the  matter  to  Mrs. 
Colhoun,  though  not  to  the  daughter.  Floride  was  at  this 
time  not  quite  seventeen  and  a  half  years  old,  and  I  know  of 
nothing  to  show  more  accurately  when  he  first  became  con- 
scious of  his  love.  But  the  letters  will  now  best  carry  on  the 
story  of  these  early  years,  while  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 
he  was  elected  to  the  State  Legislature  in  the  fall  of  1808 
and  to  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress  in  1810. 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  CHARLESTON. 

Newbury  Court  house  6th  April  1809. 

Dr  MADAM,  I  regret  exceedingly  that  I  cannot  carry  into  effect 
my  expectation  of  visiting  Charleston  before  your  departure 
thence.  I  have  received  during  the  circuit  a  considerable  influx 
of  Chancery  business ;  which  as  that  court  sets  in  June  it  will  be 

*  "  Sketch,"  p.  86. 

5  Col.  Starke's  "  Sketch,"  p.  86. 


92  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

impossible  without  a  considerable  neglect  of  my  professional 
duties.  I  consider  myself  as  not  a  little  unfortunate  in  this  dis- 
apointment;  as  while  you  were  in  the  up  country  I  had  no  op- 
portunity excepting  amidst  the  hurry  of  business  to  spend  any 
time  in  your  company,  I  should  have  been  glad  to  have  con- 
versed with  you  on  many  points ;  but  we  must  all  submit  to  those 
duties  which  call  friends  to  a  distance  from  one  another.  It  is 
perhaps  one  of  the  most  disagreeable  circumstances  in  our  profes- 
sion, that  we  cannot  neglect  its  pursuit,  without  being  Guilty 
at  the  same  time  of  imprudence  and  a  breach  of  confidence,  re- 
posed in  us  by  our  clients.  I  feel  myself  now  and  while  I  con- 
tinue in  the  practice  of  the  law  almost  as  a  slave  chained  down 
to  a  particular  place  and  course  of  life.  I  have  been  very  suc- 
cessful on  the  circuit  in  obtaining  business;  and  doubt  not  in  a 
short  time  to  have  as  much  as  I  can  conveniently  attend  to ;  how- 
ever I  still  feel  a  strong  aversion  to  the  law ;  and  am  determined 
to  forsake  it  as  soon  as  I  can  make  a  decent  independence;  for  I 
am  not  ambitious  of  great  wealth.  .  .  . 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  NEWPORT. 

Abbeville  25th  June  1809 

Dr  MADAM,  After  I  left  you  at  the  plantation,6  I  had  a  very 
pleasant,  tho'  solitary  journey,  to  this  place.  At  Pine  Vile,  I  spent 
two  days.  I  had  the  pleasure  of  meeting  Dr  Mc  Bride.  ...  I  did 
not  see  the  object  of  the  Doctor's  affections,  as  she  was  gone  to 
Charleston;  which  was  of  considerable  regret  to  him  and  myself. 
She  has  the  reputation,  however,  of  being  handsome;  and,  which 
to  my  mind  is  of  much  more  importance,  an  amiable  fine  char- 
acter. I  felt  a  delightful  sympathy  at  the  prospect  of  my  friend's 
happy  establishment  in  life.  It  also  called  up  strongly  in  my 
mind  another  subject  of  interest  more  important  to  myself.  You 
know  the  one  I  alude  to.  It  will  be  useless  for  me  to  conceal 
from  you  my  increased  anxiety  on  that  subject.  The  more  I  re- 
flect on  it,  the  more  indisoluably  does  my  happiness  seem  to 
be  connected  with  that  event.  If,  I  should  finally  be  disappointed 
by  any  adverse  circumstance,  which  heaven  forbid,  it  will  be  by 
far  the  most  unlucky  accident  in  my  life.  I  look  for  you  next 
fall  without  any  doubt,  and  at  all  events;  and  hope  nothing  but 
an  impossibility  will  prevent  you ;  at  which  time,  I  hope,  at  least, 
but  still  much  more,  to  get  rid  of  my  anxiety.  As  to  any  dis- 

•  Doubtless  Mrs.  Colhoun's  plantation,  at  Bonneau's  Ferry. 


LEGAL  CAREER  93 

closure  if  that  may  be  necessary ;  I  leave  it  wholly  to  your  pru- 
dence ;  For  I  feel  that  nothing  can  shake  my  regard.  On  my  re- 
turn I  found  it  universally  reported]  as  I  conjectured.  In  fact 
to  me  it  is  quite  unaccountable  how  such  an  impression  should  be- 
come so  universal. 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  NEWPORT. 

ABBEVILLE  i8th  July  1809. 

DR.  MADAM,  By  the  last  mail,  I  received  your  agreeable  let- 
ter of  the  i8th  Ultimo. 

Except  of  my  hearty  thanks  for  the  promptitude  of  your  com- 
munication; which  has  releaved  my  mind  from  no  small  degree 
of  anxiety.  I  can  scarcely  describe  my  emotions,  when  I  saw 
your  well  known  hand  writing  with  the  New .  Port  post  mark. 
But  the  contrariety  of  emotion  it  excited  of  hope  and  fear  quickly 
subsided  into  the  most  agreeable  feeling  on  perusing  its  contents. 

This  languages  does  not  correspond  with  my  former  opinion 
upon  this  subject.  I  formerly  thought  that  it  would  be  im- 
possible for  me  to  be  strongly  agitated  in  an  affair  of  this  kind ; 
but  that  opinion  now  seems  to  me  wholly  unfounded,  since,  as  it 
were  in  the  very  commencement,  it  can  produce  such  effects.  Do 
let  me  know  in  your  next,  at  what  time  in  the  fall  I  may  expect 
you.  The  time  will  seem  long,  and,  I  hope,  you  will  make  your 
return  as  soon  after  the  sickly  season  as  possible.  So  unlimited 
is  my  confidence  in  your  prudence  and  friendship,  that  to  you  I 
make  the  full  and  entire  disclosure  of  the  most  inward  recesses 
of  my  thoughts ;  while  to  all  the  world,  even  to  my  own  brothers, 
I  am  quite  silent.  I  have  a  strong  inclination  to  lay  open  my  in- 
tention to  the  object  of  my  affection  by  letter;  if  this  meets  with 
your  approbation,  as  proper,  nothing  will  prevent  me  from  so 
doing.  Will  you  be  so  good,  as  to  let  me  know  your  sentiment, 
on  that  point ;  and  whether  I  may  have  your  assent  to  such  cor- 
respondence. 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  CHARLESTON 

ABBEVILLE  2oth  Jan.  1810. 

DR,  MADAM,  Without  pretending  to  decide  whether  that  maxim 
from  which  you  draw  so  much  of  your  sperit  of  resignation  to 
the  various  events  of  this  life,  "  that  all  is  for  the  best,"  is  in  every 
instance  true,  yet  I  am  sure  that  in  many  instances  things  falling 
out  different  from  what  we  would  have  ordered  contribute  to 


94  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

promote  our  happiness.  This  was  my  case  the  two  last  days  I  staid 
at  the  Ferry.7  I  spent  them  so  pleasantly ;  and  the  reflection  on 
them  since  has  been  such  a  copious  source  of  gratification  and 
delight,  that  I  feel  myself  richly  rewarded  for  the  delay,  had  it 
been  for  weeks.  I  hope,  I  shall  forever  find  cause  to  esteem  them 
a  fortunate  and  happy  period  of  my  life.  Should  it  contribute 
in  any  degree  to  an  event,  I  have  so  much  at  heart,  how  happy 
a  man  shall  I  be.  May  He  who  governs  all  things  cause  it  to 
eventuate  so  happily!  —  I  had  fine  weather  on  my  return;  and 
my  journey  was  only  made  disagreeable  by  reflecting  on  the  in- 
creasing distance  of  those  for  whom  I  have  so  great  a  regard. 
.  .  .  Tell  my  much  esteemed  Floride  that  nothing  could  prevent 
me  from  the  pleasure  of  writing,  but  that  there  is  so  much  sus- 
picion on  the  subject,  that  I  am  fearful  of  the  fate  of  a  double 
letter  endorsed  in  my  hand  writing.  I  hope  to  see  you  early  next 
month ;  let  it  not  be,  if  possible,  past  the  midle.  I  would  recom- 
mend the  road  by  Gibham's.  The  road  from  the  ferry  there  is 
as  good  and  as  near  as  from  Charleston  to  the  same  place. 

[P.S.]  Tell  Floride  that  no  time,  or  distance  can  in  the  least 
abate  my  affection,  but  that  absence  only  proves  how  much  my 
happiness  depends  on  her  good  opinions. 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  NEWPORT. 

ABBEVILLE  12th  June  1810. 

Dr.  MADAM,  I  got  up  safely.  I  was  much  favoured  by  the 
weather.  I  would  have  had  a  lonesome  journey,  had  it  not  been 
that  my  thoughts  were  so  much  absorbed  by  that  subject  so  im- 
portant to  me;  and  so  near  my  heart.  How  important  it  is,  on 
that  occasion  to  have  the  full,  and  entire  sanction  of  our  reason ; 
and  how  delightful  it  is,  that  the  more  I  reflect,  the  greater  cause 
I  see,  to  thank  that  good  providence  who  has  directed  my  choice. 
I  am  not  much  given  to  enthusiasm ;  nor  to  anticipate  future  hap- 
pinesss.  But,  I  cannot,  now  refrain  my  hopes  of  joy.  On  my 
part,  I  feel  the  most  anxious  solicitude  for  the  happiness  of  one, 
to  me  dearer  than  all  others;  on  her's,  after  a  careful  examina- 
tion, I  find  none  but  those  qualities  in  her  character,  which  are 
suited  to  me;  and  are  calculated  to  secure  lasting  enjoyment. 
Let  me  add,  without  the  least  imputation  of  flattery,  that,  to  be 
so  nearly  related  to  yourself,  is  a  fruitful  source  of  happiness.  I 
know  not  why,  from  my  first  acquaintance  with  you  at  New-Port, 

7  Bonneau's  Ferry  again,  where  Mrs.  Colhoun  had  a  plantation. 


LEGAL  CAREER  95 

I  have  loved  you  as  a  mother.  Sure  am  I,  that  I  could  not  from 
a  mother  experience  more  kindness  and  tender  affection.  With 
the  blessing  of  God  I  cannot  but  be  happy;  when  every  circum- 
stance is  so  propitious.  If  possible,  I  will  be  in  New  Port  next 
fall.  I  wish  much  that  Floride  would  consent  to  that  time.  I 
will  write  to  her  about  it,  by  my  next.  I  think  on  many  accounts 
it  will  be  the  best.  If  you  know  her  sentiment  I  would  be  glad 
you  would  let  me  know  in  your  next,  for  it  will  be  a  great  induce- 
ment for  me  to  go  on,  if  she  agrees  to  that  time ;  and  what  is  a 
matter  of  importance,  will  furnish  a  good  excuse  for  my  leaving 
my  professional  business  at  the  fall  court. 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  NEWPORT. 

ABBEVILLE,  3oth  June  1810. 

Dr.  MADAM,  ...  I  am  glad  you  mentioned  the  subject,  so 
near  to  my  heart,  to  Mr.  Desaussure.  It  always  struck  me  it 
would  be  proper  to  do  so,  and  I  should  have  mentioned  it  my- 
self, if  you  had  not.  I  am  convinced  he  is  a  friend  to  both  of  us. 
You  mention  that  "  he  will  have  some  conversation  with  me  on 
the  subject."  8  This  makes  me  doubly  anxious  to  see  him,  for 
whatever  has  the  least  relation  to  it  arrests  my  attention. 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  NEWPORT. 

ABBEVILLE  i8th  July,  1810 

...  I  have  been  looking  out  for  some  weeks  past  for  a  place 
to  purchase  so  as  to  establish  myself  permanently  for  life.  I  was 
desirous  of  purchasing  on  the  Savannah  river  near  my  relatives, 
but  I  find  only  one  place  for  sale  there  and  that  at  a  price  nearly 
double  its  value.  At  present  I  have  a  place  near  by  brother  Pat- 
rick's.9 It  is  a  valuable  one  and  as  pleasant  as  any  in  that  part 
of  the  State.10  If  I  purchase  I  may  commence  building  im- 
mediately, but  perhaps  it  will  be  best  to  postpone  building  till 
some  time  next  winter,  for  should  the  event  I  have  so  much  at 
heart  take  place  next  winter  according  to  present  arrangements 
and  I  should  be  elected  to  Congress  next  fall,  of  which  I  sup- 
pose there  is  no  doubt,  both  my  own  inclination  and  the  health  of 
Floride  would  require  the  following  summer  to  be  spent  in 
travel. 

8  I  presume  a  marriage  settlement  for  Miss  Colhoun,  spoken  of  in  Cal- 
houn's  letter  of  September  7,  1810,  shortly  infra,  is  the  subject  referred  to. 
I  do  not  know  whether  one  was  made. 

9  "  The  old  Calhoun  homestead."    Note  by  Col.  Starke. 
10 "Bath."    Ibid. 


96  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  NEWPORT. 

ABBEVILLE  7th  Sep.  1810. 

DEAR  MADAM,  I  join  with  you  in  expression  of  gratitude  to 
that  good  providence,  who  has  so  mercifully  preserved  the  life 
of  one  so  dear  to  our  future  hopes  and  happiness.11  The  perusal 
of  your  letter  filled  me  with  joy  and  sympathy  at  the  same  time. 
Joy  for  her  preservation;  and  sympathy  for  the  pain  she  must 
have  endured.  How  often  and  unmerited  do  we  experience  the 
kind  interferance  of  heaven!  .  .  . 

By  the  last  mail,  I  had  a  long  answer  from  Judge  Desaussure, 
to  a  letter  I  had  addressed  him  as  soon  as  I  heard  of  his  return 
to  Charleston.  He  is  pleased  to  express  himself  in  very  flatter- 
ing terms  of  me;  and  to  give  his  entire  approbation  to  the  con- 
templated connection.  .  .  .  Judge  Desaussure  mentions  the  set- 
tlement of  Floride's  property.  I  know  not,  but  that  it  will  be 
indelicate  in  me  to  express  my  opinion  on  that  subject.  The  for- 
tune is  her's.  I  am  not  directed  in  my  choice  by  it.  Yet,  I  think 
it  a  duty,  that  I  owe  to  yourself  and  Floride  to  be  perfectly  candid 
on  all  points.  From  prejudice,  or  reason,  I  have  been  always  op- 
posed to  marriage  settlements.  I  think  experience  and  reason 
prove  them  to  be  unfriendly  to  the  happiness  of  the  marriage  state ; 
and,  that  they  tend  to  produce  pecuniary  embarresment.  In  that 
state  there  should  be  one  interest,  one  happiness  and  one  destiny. 
That  entire  confidence,  which  is  reposed  by  a  female  in  the  object 
of  her  choice,  in  placing  both  her  honor  and  her  property  in  his 
custody  give  rise  to  the  most  sacred  and  tender  regard.  A  mar- 
riage settlement  implys  a  distrust.  It  is  no  safety  against  inevita- 
ble accident.  It  is  a  guard  against  the  imprudence,  or  miscon- 
duct of  the  husband  only.  As  far  as  children  are  concerned,  it 
places  them  above  the  dependence  of  the  parents.  Nothing  can 
be  more  unfriendly  to  their  government,  or  character.  As  to 
property,  it  often  tends  to  prevent  farther  accumulation ;  and  pre- 
vent an  extrication  at  the  commencement  of  an  embarresment. 
If  successful  in  life,  there  is  no  benefit  in  one;  if  unsuccessful, 
what  more  disagreeable  than  to  have  property,  but  not  to  be  able 
to  pay  just  debts?  It  would  to  me,  be  wretched.  It  would  be 
splendid  poverty.  You  have  my  candid  sentiment;  dictated,  not 
by  selfish  views,  but  a  regard  to  our  mutual  happiness.  It  is  my 
duty  to  give  it.  ... 

11 1  presume  this  has  reference  to  a  fall,  or  some  such  accident,  suffered 
by  Miss  Colhoun. 


LEGAL  CAREER  97 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  NEWPORT. 

ABBEVILLE,  13th  Sept  1810. 

DEAR  MADAM,  I  know  not  how  to  express  my  gratitude  for 
that  almost  maternal  regard,  which  you  have  always  exercised 
towards  me.  Such  is  the  warmth  of  affection,  which,  I  feel  to- 
wards you,  that  I  can  scarcely  refrain  from  addressing  you  by 
the  endearing  epithet  of  mother.  I  hope  the  time  now  will  not  be 
long,  when  I  may  with  propriety  use  it.  That  day,  which  will  put 
me  in  that  endearing  relation  towards  you  will  be  the  happiest 
of  my  life.  In  yours  of  the  2Oth  of  August,  which  I  received 
yesterday,  you  observe,  "that  should  it  be  the  will  of  the  Al- 
mighty to  unite  me  to  Floride  that  you  only'  wish,  she  may  make 
me  as  happy  as  I  deserve."  In  that  event  it  will  be  mine  to  make 
her  happy.  Should  I  always  remain  with  my  present  feeling, 
which  I  trust  in  God  I  may,  no  task  will  be  half  so  sweet  to  me, 
as  to  make  her,  as  happy,  as  the  conditions  of  this  life  will  per- 
mit. I  have  no  doubt,  Floride  will  be  actuated  with  similar  feel- 
ings towards  me.  This  mutual  love  must  constitute  the  joy  of  the 
marriage  state.  To  be  united  in  the  sacred  bonds  of  matrimony ; 
to  regard  one  another,  as  companions  mutually  united  for  mutual 
happiness,  for  each  to  place  their  greatest  joy  in  the  happiness 
of  the  other,  is  to  my  mind  the  most  enviable  condition  on  earth. 

0  that  our  married  life  may  so  commence  so  continue  and  so  end ! 
And  that  you,  our  dear  mother,  may  long  continue  to  live,  to  enjoy 
and  participate  in  our  happiness.  ...  I  mentioned  in  my  last,  that 
it  would  not  be  possible  for  me  to  visit  N.  Port  this  fall.  ...  As 

1  shall  cease  issuing  business  after  this  fall,  I  shall  have  leisure 
to  accompany  you  by  land  hereafter.     Which  ever  way  you  de- 
termine, I  hope  you  will  be  here  by  the  midle  of  Novr.     If  you 
conclude  to  come  by  water  I  shall  be  in  Charleston  by  the  2Oth 
of  that  month,  at  fartherest.     Your  friends  here  are  all  well. 

To  Miss  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  NEWPORT. 

ABBEVILLE,  S.  C,  28  Sept.,  1810. 

I  rejoice,  my  dearest  Floride,  that  the  period  is  fast  approach- 
ing when  it  will  be  no  longer  necessary  to  address  you  through 
the  cold  medium  of  a  letter.  At  furthest  it  cannot  be  much 
longer  than  a  month  before  I  shall  behold  the  dearest  object  of  my 
hopes  and  desires.  I  am  anxious  to  see  you  and  my  impatience 
daily  increases.  May  heaven  grant  you  a  safe  return.  What 
pleasure  I  have  experienced  in  your  company,  what  delight  in 


98  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  exchange  of  sentiment,  what  transport  in  the  testimonies  of 
mutual  love.  In  a  short  time  this  with  the  permission  of  heaven 
will  be  renewed,  and  I  shall  be  happy.  To  be  united  in  mutual 
virtuous  love  is  the  first  and  best  bliss  that  God  has  permitted 
to  our  natures.  My  dearest  one,  may  our  love  strengthen  with 
each  returning  day,  may  it  ripen  and  mellow  with  our  years,  and 
may  it  end  in  immortal  joys.  It  gives  me  much  satisfaction  that 
time  and  absence  make  no  impression  on  my  love  for  you ;  it  glows 
with  no  less  ardour  than  at  the  moment  of  parting,  which  must  be 
a  happy  omen  of  its  permanent  nature.  When  mere  personal 
charms  attract,  the  impression  may  be  violent  but  cannot  be  last- 
ing, and  it  requires  the  perpetual  presence  of  the  object  to  keep 
it  alive ;  but  when  the  beauty  of  mind,  the  soft  and  sweet  disposi- 
tion, the  amiable  and  lovable  character  embellished  with  inno- 
cence and  cheerfulness  are  united  to  the  attractions  of  personal 
beauty,  it  bids  defiance  to  time.  Such,  my  dear  Floride,  are 
the  arms  by  which  you  have  conquered,  and  it  is  by  these  the 
durability  of  your  sovereignty  is  established  over  your  subject 
whom  you  hold  in  willing  servitude. 

I  am  much  involved  in  business  at  present.  Court  com- 
mences in  two  weeks,  and  in  a  week  the  election  for  Congress 
will  take  place.  My  opponent  is  Gen.  Elmore  of  Laurens/2 
but  it  is  thought  that  I  will  succeed  by  a  large  majority.  As 
soon  as  the  result  is  known  I  will  inform  you.  Write  me  be- 
fore you  leave  New  Port.  I  wish  you  a  pleasant  journey  home. 
May  God  preserve  you.  Adieu  my  love;  my  heart's  delight.13 

Mrs.  Colhoun  came  South  by  water  this  year  (1810),  and 
arrived  at  Charleston  in  November,  to  find  her  daughter's  lover 
on  hand  and  awaiting  them.  Well  may  Col.  Starke  write 
that  heaven  had  been  kind  to  him.  Not  only  was  the  attractive 
young  woman  of  his  choice  coming  home  to  become  soon  his 
bride,  but  his  career  at  the  bar  had  been  most  brilliant,  he  had 
served  during  two  sessions  in  the  State  Legislature  with  marked 
success,  and  he  had  very  recently  been  triumphantly  elected  a 
member  of  the  Twelfth  Congress  at  the  early  age  of  twenty- 
eight. 

12  Gen.  John  A.  Elmore,  a  Revolutionary  officer,  father  of  Franklin  H. 
Elmore. 

13  As  already  explained   (ante,  p.  63),  after  this  date,  mere  errors  of 
spelling  in  Calhoun  s  letters  will  be  omitted. 


LEGAL  CAREER  99 

For  some  reason,  it  had  been  desired, —  possibly  because  of 
the  youth  of  the  girl, —  to  keep  the  engagement  a  secret,  and 
we  have  seen  the  far-distant  Calhoun  hesitating  at  first  even 
to  send  a  double-weight  letter  to  Mrs.  Colhoun  for  fear  of 
thus  betraying  the  secret  that  he  had  two  correspondents  in 
that  same  family  at  Newport.  At  a  later  date,  however,  he  did 
unbosom  himself  by  writing  to  the  object  of  his  flame.  The 
affair,  as  was  to  be  expected,  was  none  the  less  suspected  at 
his  home. 

In  the  immediate  family  of  the  coming  Mrs.  Calhoun,  the 
secret  was  possibly  too  well  kept,  and  was  long  quite  unknown 
to  her  brother,  James  Edward,  a  boy  of  fourteen.  This  led 
to  an  event  that  he  narrated  years  afterwards  to  Col.  Starke. 
The  latter  reminds  us  that  intercourse  between  young  persons 
of  different  sexes  was  not  so  free  in  the  days  of  Calhoun' s 
youth  as  it  was  even  later  in  his  time,  and  then  goes  on  to  say 
that  James  Edward  Colhoun  told  him  that  one  day  when  out 
driving  with  his  sister  and  Calhoun  he  was  highly  indignant  to 
see  his  sister  slyly  kissed  by  the  latter.  Going  to  his  mother, 
upon  getting  home,  to  report  the  awful  event, —  probably  burst- 
ing with  the  importance  of  his  information  and  fired  with  the 
jealous  dignity  that  a  boy  of  fourteen  is  likely  to  feel  towards 
a  sister  several  years  his  senior, —  James  Edward  was  aston- 
ished that  neither  surprise  nor  indignation  was  shown.  It 
may  be  surmised  that  the  wise  mother  at  once  enlightened  the 
boy. 

The  young  couple  were  married  on  January  8,  1811,  at 
which  date  Calhoun  was  not  yet  twenty-nine  years  of  age  and 
his  bride  nearing  nineteen.  The  wedding  was  said  by  James 
Edward  Colhoun  to  have  been  a  grand  affair, — "  an  old-time 
wedding," —  and  he  added  that  everybody  was  present.  The 
bridal  pair  seems  to  have  remained  for  a  time  at  Mrs.  Colhoun's 
plantation  at  Bonneau's  Ferry,  and  later  removed  to  a  place 
named  "  Bath," —  on  the  ridge  between  the  Savannah  and 
Little  rivers, —  which  Calhoun  had  bought.  It  was  not  far 
from  the  site  of  the  original  Calhoun  settlement,  which  was 
then  occupied  by  the  groom's  brother  Patrick.  His  letters 
have  shown  that  he  had  wanted  to  buy  and  settle  on  the  Savan- 


ioo  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

nah  River  but  had  been  unable  to  secure  a  place  at  what  he 
thought  a  fair  price. 

This  new  home  remained  the  young  couple's  residence  for 
some  years,  and  Calhoun  expected  to  live  there  permanently. 
The  two  were  in  Charleston  in  the  May  following  their  mar- 
riage, and  we  may  possibly  secure  some  idea  of  the  bride's 
simple  bringing  up  from  the  fact  that  when  she  was  induced 
one  evening  to  visit  the  theatre  with  other  members  of  her 
family,  but  without  her  husband, —  who  was  possibly  not 
willing  to  go  to  the  theatre, —  she  seems  to  have  been  shocked 
at  some  of  the  sights  she  witnessed.  Her  still  rather  puri- 
tanically inclined  husband  wrote  to  Mrs.  Colhoun  that  his  wife 
was  "  not  at  all  pleased ;  and  feels  no  inclination  to  renew  her 
visit  there.  I  was  pleased  to  see  that  her  good  sense  prevented 
her  from  being  dazzled  by  the  glare  of  the  novelty." 

Calhoun  and  his  wife  were  in  Columbia  for  a  time  in  the 
spring  of  181 1,  and  it  may  possibly  be  conjectured  that  he  was 
still  practising  law  to  some  extent,  or  at  least  winding  up 
pending  cases,  though  his  letter  of  September  13,  1810,  in- 
dicates that  he  was  then  already  pretty  well  determined  to  give 
up  the  law  after  that  fall.  Col.  Starke  tells  us  14  that  Calhoun 
made  a  sufficient  fortune  during  his  few  years  at  the  bar  to  feel 
that  he  had  a  moderate  competence,  and  emphasizes  in  this  con- 
nection particularly  his  chancery  practice  as  the  source  of  this 
fortune.  There  is,  too,  a  letter 15  of  Calhoun  himself,  which 
possibly  lends  color  to  this  view;  but  it  seems  to  me  quite 
impossible  to  suppose  that  in  the  two  or  three  short  years  dur- 
ing which  he  practised  law  he  could  have  earned  a  life-long 
competence,  even  though  moderate.  It  is  far  more  likely  that 
his  inheritance  from  his  father  was  larger  than  we  are  aware 
of,  or  that  it  had  appreciated  in  value  materially  from  the 
increase  of  population  in  the  neighborhood. 

Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  he  married  a  woman  who  is 
described  as  an  heiress.  Her  fortune  added  to  his  may  well 
have  placed  the  couple  in  very  easy  circumstances,  especially 

""Sketch,"  p.  88:  "A  few  years  of  law  practice,  particularly  in  the 
chancery  court,  had  enabled  Mr.  Calhoun  to  accumulate  that  moderate 
competency  to  which  he  aspired." 

15  Letter  of  April  6,  1809,  to  Mrs.  Colhoun, 


LEGAL  CAREER'  ;  161 

as  it  is  known  that  he  inherited  land  from  his  father.  A 
Southern  landowner  of  that  day,  with  the  means  to  cultivate 
his  plantation,  had  probably  a  moderate  competence  easily 
within  reach.  The  marriage  brought  him,  too,  social  position 
in  lower  Carolina,  and  in  this  way  was,  beyond  doubt,  a  ma- 
terial aid  to  him  in  his  political  career. 

Everything  tends  to  show  that  the  union  between  Calhoun 
and  his  cousin  was  a  most  happy  one.  He  is  to  be  found 
watching  over  her  with  devotion  at  all  times,  in  the  small  as 
well  as  the  larger  things  of  life.  During  the  first  year  of  their 
married  life,  when  she  suffered  the  usual  ills  of  coming  ma- 
ternity, his  letters  to  her  mother  tell  plainly  enough  the  story 
of  the  kindness  shown  to  his  wife.  And  when,  in  a  few  years, 
they  lost  with  appalling  suddenness  their  second  child, —  Flo- 
ride,  born  in  1814, —  he  evidently  strove  hard,  though  with 
little  success,  to  console  the  grief  of  the  mother,  bereft  of  her 
child  within  the  short  space  of  one  day.  In  1811,  within  a 
year  of  his  marriage,  duty  to  the  public  demanded  of  him 
that  he  should  hurry  away  to  the  meeting  of  Congress,  and  he 
was  forced  to  leave  Mrs.  Calhoun  very  soon  after  she  was 
delivered  of  their  first  child.  Their  second  child,  too,  was  born 
in  February,  1814,  during  another  of  his  attendances  upon 
Congress,  far  away  in  Washington. 

The  long  absence  of  the  husband  from  home,  upon  these 
trips  of  ambition  and  public  duty,  tried  him  severely,  and  his 
letters  betray  plainly  enough  the  homesickness  and  the  constant 
longing  he  felt  for  his  wife  and  young  children.  They  had, 
as  will  hereafter  be  shown,  no  less  than  nine  children. 


CHAPTER  VI 

ENTRANCE   UPON    PUBLIC   AFFAIRS 

•s 

Legislature  —  Elected  to  House  of  Representatives  — 
Personal  Glimpses. 

IT  will  be  necessary  now  to  go  back  a  few  years,  in  order 
to  pick  up  some  of  the  threads  that  have  been  passed  by  for 
the  moment. 

Calhoun  was  still  a  student  at  law  and  was  about  to  go 
up  to  Abbeville, —  with  a  view  to  his  admission  to  the  bar  and 
to  being  in  the  higher  country  during  the  heated  term, —  when, 
on  June  22,  1807,  an  outrage  was  perpetrated  upon  our  neu- 
trality of  which  it  is  well-nigh  impossible  to  conceive 
in  our  sturdy  adolescence  of  to-day.  On  that  day  the  British 
war  vessel  Leopard  fired  on  the  American  man-of-war  Chesa- 
peake just  outside  the  capes  of  Chesapeake  Bay,  and  soon 
forced  the  sadly-unprepared  American  to  haul  down  her  colors 
and  submit  to  the  indignity  of  being  boarded  by  a  British 
officer  and  sailors.  These  then  had  the  American  crew  called 
on  deck  and  took  away  with  them  four  men  alleged  to  be 
deserters  from  the  British  ship  Melampus. 

The  whole  United  States  flared  up  at  once, —  as  well  it  might, 
—  and  meetings  were  held  far  and  wide  to  pledge  support  to 
the  government  in  any  steps  that  might  be  taken  to  vindicate 
the  country  from  the  wrong  inflicted  upon  us.  Calhoun  had 
never  much  believed  in  the  ultimate  success  of  our  restrictive 
system,1  though  he  had  given  it  his  support.  Others  then 
and  since  have  denounced  Jefferson  for  the  policy,  but  these 
critics  have  not  made  clear  what  other  course  was  open  to  the 

1 "  Autobiography,"  p.  10 ;  Calhoun's  speeches  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives on  June  24,  181-2,  and  April  6,  1814.  Annals  of  Congress, 
Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  II,  1811-12,  pp.  1539  et  seq.,  and 
Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  Vol.  II,  1813-14,  p.  1963. 

102 


ENTRANCE  UPON  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS         103 

President  under  the  circumstances  prevailing  at  that  time  in 
our  callow  country,  with  its  parts  only  half  knit  together  and 
one  large  section  loudly  threatening  disunion.  Probably,  the 
Struggle  for  Neutrality  was  necessary  for  us, —  much  as 
teething  and  a  thousand  other  bodily  ills  are  necessary, —  and 
it  may  at  least  be  safely  said  that  none  but  the  very  boldest 
Executive  would  have  dared  to  plunge  this  new-born  land  into 
such  madness  as  war  with  the  Great  Britain  of  that  day  sooner 
than  the  Republican  party  did. 

A  meeting  was  held  at  Abbeville  as  well  as  a  thousand  other 
places  to  promise  popular  support  to  the  sorely  tried  Jefferson ; 
and  it  was  here  that  Calhoun's  public  career  may  be  said  to  have 
begun.  He  was  selected,  the  "  Autobiography  "  tells  us,  to 
prepare  the  resolutions  for  the  meeting,  and  was  then  asked 
to  present  them  in  a  speech.  It  was  the  first  time  in  his  life 
on  which  he  addressed  a  public  assemblage  of  his  countrymen. 
The  speech  is  of  course  lost,  as  are  the  resolutions  as  well,  and 
we  can  do  no  more  than  imagine  the  scene,  of  which  Col. 
Starke  2  writes  as  follows : 

Standing  one  or  two  inches  above  six  feet,  the  gaunt,  erect 
young  man,  then  in  the  twenty-sixth  year  of  his  age,  presented 
that  marked  visage  known  to  many  in  the  audience,  and  for  the 
first  time  flashed  upon  them  the  intense  light  from  those  dark 
brown  eyes. 

About  one  year  later  he  was  nominated  for  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  the  State  Legislature  from  his  home  dis- 
trict of  Abbeville,  and  according  to  the  "  Autobiography " 
was  easily  elected  at  a  time  when  his  profession  was  far  from 
popular,  and  no  member  of  it  had  been  sent  to  the  body  for 
many  years.  Abbeville  was  entitled  to  three  members  in  the 
House,  and  those  chosen  at  this  election  were  Calhoun,  Joseph 
Black  and  Peter  Gibert.3  The  election  was  held  probably  soon 

2  «  Sketch,"  p.  85. 

8 "  Autobiography,"  p.  7.  The  Charleston  "Times"  of  October  25, 
1808.  The  "Autobiography"  reads  that  Calhoun  was  first  elected  to  the 
legislature  "at  the  next  election"  after  the  meeting  in  regard  to  the 
Chesapeake  outrage  (the  accurate  date  of  which  is  unknown),  and  Cal- 
houn says,  in  his  letter  of  September  8,  1828,  to  Theodore  Lyman  ("  Cor- 
respondence," pp.  266-269) ,  that  he  was  elected  to  the  Legislature  the  year 


104  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

after  the  middle  of  October,  1808,  and  the  newly  chosen  body 
met  on  the  28th  day  of  the  following  November.4 

It  was  an  important  period  in  the  history  of  South  Caro- 
lina, for  at  this  time  was  finally  enacted  the  well-known  com- 
promise which  at  length  composed  the  bickerings  between 
the  inhabitants  of  the  upper  country  and  those  of  the  coastal 
plains.  These  latter,  having  become  possessed  of  full  power 
at  a  date  when  the  upper  country  was  an  empty  wilderness, 
long  refused  to  admit  the  steadily  increasing  population  of 
the  new  region  to  an  effective  share  in  the  government,  and 
many  were  the  contests  over  this  subject.  At  the  final  session 
of  the  preceding  Legislature,  in  June,  1808,  before  Calhoun's 
election,  the  compromise  in  question  had  been-  approved  by 
overwhelming  majorities,  had  been  subsequently  advertised  5 
in  accordance  with  the  constitutional  requirement,  and  was  now 
to  come  up  before  the  newly  chosen  legislature  and  had  to  be 
approved  by  it  also,  with  certain  specified  formalities,  by 
majorities  of  at  least  two-thirds  in  each  House  in  order  to 
become  effective.  It  was  actually  passed  shortly  after  the 
opening  of  the  session  by  unanimous  votes  in  both  branches.6 

The  compromise,  which  was  thus  made  a  part  of  the  con- 
stitution of  South  Carolina,  preserved  the  power  of  the  low 
country  in  the  Senate,  while  the  House  was  remodelled  on  a 
new  basis.  It  was  made  to  consist  of  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
four  members,  of  whom  sixty-two  were  allotted  to  white  popu- 
lation and  sixty-two  to  taxation,  and  an  estimate  was  directed 
to  be  taken  every  ten  years  both  of  population  and  of  the 
amount  of  taxes  paid  by  each  district.7  Under  this  provision 

he  was  admitted  to  the  bar,  but  this  must  be  an  error  of  memory,  unless 
possibly  it  refers  to  his  admission  to  the  chancery  bar,  which  Col.  Starke 
says  was  in  1808.  The  MSS.  original  journals  of  the  Legislature  show 
conclusively  that  he  was  first  a  member  at  the  November-December  ses- 
sion, 1808. 

4  The  Charleston  "  Courier,"  December  3,  1808. 

8  The  Charleston  "  Courier,"  June  29,  and  September  13  and  28,  1808. 

6 The  Charleston  "Courier,"  December  13,  15,  and  17,  1808.  The  con- 
stitutional amendment  so  passed  is  printed  in  Cooper's  "  Statutes  at  Large," 
Vol.  V,  p.  566. 

7  In  his  "  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Government  of  the  United 
States"  ("Works,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  404,  405),  Calhoun  writes  that  this  pro- 
vision "guards  effectively  against  the  abuse  of  the  taxing  power.  The 
effect  of  such  abuse  would  be,  to  give  to  the  portion  of  the  State  which 


ENTRANCE  UPON  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS         105 

Calhoun  tells  us  8  that  the  upper  section  gained  "  a  preponder- 
ance equally  decisive  in  the  House  of  Representatives." 

The  amendment,  in  the  enactment  of  which  Calhoun  thus  had 
a  hand  in  early  life,  evidently  struck  him  as  very  wise,  and  he 
highly  commends  the  action  of  the  low  country  in  giving 
up  its  rights  under  the  constitution  as  well  as  that  of  the 
upper  country  in  yielding  the  complete  control  that  would  have 
come  to  it  from  a  government  based  on  numbers  only.  Here 
he  found  one  of  the  clearest  and  best  working  instances  of  that 
system  of  "  concurrent  majorities,"  9  which  he  advocated  10  in 
so  many  other  instances  during  his  public  career,  as  the  high- 
est political  wisdom  and  far  superior  to  any  system  based  on 
the  tyranny  of  a  mere  numerical  majority.  Deep  impressions 
are  often  made  on  a  man's  lifelong  beliefs  by  some  event  of 
his  early  years,  and  such  was  probably  the  case  with  Calhoun 
in  this  instance;  but  it  seems  clear  to  the  writer  that  the 
tendency  of  the  world  since  that  time  has  been  away  from  Cal- 
houn's  views  in  this  as  wrell  as  some  other  matters. 

At  the  same  time  that  Calhoun  went  to  the  Legislature,  in 

might  be  overtaxed,  an  increased  weight  in  the  government  proportional 
to  the  excess ;  and  to  diminish,  in  the  same  proportion,  the  weight  of  the 
section  which  might  exempt  itself  from  an  equal  share  of  the  burden  of 
taxation." 

8 Ibid.,  p.  404;  and  see  400-406.  Mr.  Schafer  ("Sectionalism  and 
Representation  in  South  Carolina,"  printed  in  "  Annual  Report  of  Amer- 
ican Historical  Association  for  1900,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  237  et  seq.)  thinks  that 
Calhoun's  explanation  is  not  altogether  accurate,  and  that  the  coastal 
region  was  still  able  in  reality  to  dominate  in  the  lower  House,  too, 
through  the  intermediate  black  belt's  having  become  part  and  parcel  of 
the  lower  country  (pp.  433-437).  Calhoun  lived,  however,  at  the  time, 
and  saw  the  machinery  work;  nor  have  there  been  many  observers  more 
competent  to  decide  than  he.  His  final  statement  upon  the  subject  in  his 
"  Constitution  and  Government  of  the  United  States,"  was,  moreover, 
written  in  his  last  days  and  not  printed  until  after  his  death.  "  Works," 
Vol.  I,  "  Advertisement,"  p.  vi. 

9  When  Webster  asserts  in  debate   (Congressional  Debates,  Vol.   IX, 
Part  i,  1832-33,  p.  576)  his  difficulty  in  understanding  what  Calhoun  meant 
by  this  expression,  must  we  put  this  down  solely  to  the  none  too  honest 
skill  of  an  advocate,  who  hopes  thus  to  throw  doubt  on  the  contention  of 
his  opponent,  or  can  we  suppose  that  for  a  moment  that  intellectual  giant 
actually  failed  to  understand  a  system  as  old  as  that  of  England,  to  which 
the  analytical  mind  of  Calhoun  applied  a  term  possibly  new? 

10  The  idea  is  also  largely  treated  in  the  posthumous  "  Disquisition  on 
Government,"  "Works,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  1-107;  and  see  also  the  posthumous 
"  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Government  of  the  United  States," 
ibid.,  pp.  400-406. 


106  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

1808,  Langdon  Cheves  also  entered  upon  his  service  in  that 
capacity.  William  Lowndes,  on  the  other  hand,  was  not  then 
a  member,  though  he  had  been  of  the  prior  Legislature.  With 
both  of  these  promising  characters,  Calhoun  was  destined 
shortly  to  be  associated  in  a  wider  sphere.  He  was  early  in 
the  session  appointed  a  member  of  the  very  large  Committee 
of  the  House  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  and  was  also  a  mem- 
ber of  the  far  more  important  one  on  Judiciary.11  Early  in 
the  session,  Cheves  presented  "  a  bill  for  the  better  arrange- 
ment for  the  sittings  of  the  court  of  equity,  for  the  establish- 
ment of  appeals  for  the  same  and  for  other  purposes,"  and 
Calhoun  was  appointed  one  of  a  committee  of  six  to  which  it 
was  referred.  A  bill  was  later  passed  by  both  branches,  in 
pursuance  of  Cheves's  suggestion,  and  became  a  law;  and  the 
next  year  a  law  was  enacted  for  the  more  easy  and  expeditious 
administration  of  justice.12 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  as  showing  the  temper  in  South  Caro- 
lina at  that  day  in  regard  to  federal  affairs  and  the  threatening 
foreign  complications,  that  the  Legislature  preceding  the  one 
in  which  Calhoun  served,  had  in  December,  1807,  made  an  ap- 
propriation of  $80,000  to  arm  the  militia.13  During  his  term 
of  service,  too,  laws  were  passed  to  reorganize  the  militia, — 
aiming  at  uniformity  of  discipline, —  as  well  as  others  to  in- 
corporate companies  for  navigating  their  rivers.  I  know  of 
no  actual  evidence  of  any  part  taken  by  Calhoun  on  these 
measures,  but  the  latter  at  least  may  well  have  had  the 
active  aid  of  the  future  author  of  the  "  Report  on  Roads  and 
Canals." 

It  may  be  surmised,  too,  that  he  had  a  hand  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  DeSaussure  as  Chancellor  of  the  State.  DeSaussure 
was  a  strong  Federalist,  while  the  Legislature  was  so  over- 
whelmingly Republican  that  the  Federalists  took  almost  no  part 
in  the  proceedings.  When,  however,  in  1808  the  selection  of 

11  The  "Courier"  of  December  3,  and  "Times"  of  December  6,  1808. 
The  name  is  occasionally  spelled  Colhoun,  and  the  "  Times  "  of  December 
6  seems  to  show  that  there  were  two  members  of  the   family  in  the 
House. 

12  The  "  Courier "  of  December  13  and  21,  1808.    Cooper's  "  Statutes 
at  Large,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  565,  595. 

"The  "Courier"  of  December  28,  1807. 


ENTRANCE  UPON  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS         107 

a  Chancellor  became  necessary,  the  party  in  power  possibly  had 
difficulty  to  find  an  available  person  for  the  position  from  their 
own  ranks,  and  DeSaussure  writes  that  old  friendships  with 
a  number  of  members  belonging  to  the  opposite  party  led 
to  their  selection  of  him.14  It  was  so  admirable  a  choice,  that 
if,  as  seems  likely  from  Calhoun's  earlier  relations  with 
DeSaussure,  he  had  any  part  in  the  selection,  the  fact  should 
be  mentioned  in  his  biography. 

On  December  15,  1808,  he  was  appointed  by  Governor  Dray- 
ton  one  of  the  aides  on  his  staff  with  the  rank  of  Lieutenant 
Colonel.15  So  far  as  I  know,  this  was  the  only  position  of  a 
military  character  ever  held  by  him. 

Calhoun  sat  also  during  the  second  session  held  in  No- 
vember and  December,  i8oo,,16  but  I  have  not  found  any  actual 
record  of  his  doings  at  this  session.  He  writes  in  his  "  Auto- 
biography "  17  that  during  his  service  he  was  instrumental  in 
the  passage  of  several  important  changes  in  the  law  of  the 
State,  and  I  think  that  enough  has  been  already  said  to  show 
that  these  claims  of  his  campaign  biography  of  1843  are  prob- 
ably none  too  strong.18  It  seems  that  he  was  independent,  as 
was  to  be  expected  from  one  of  his  race,  and  that  his  vote  was 
by  no  means  to  be  controlled  by  any  one  but  himself.  Starke 
tells  us19  that  Burr's  son-in-law,  Joseph  Alston,  was  a  mem- 
ber at  the  same  time  and  wanted  to  bring  Calhoun  into  his 
clique,  but  soon  found  his  efforts  unavailing  and  remarked 

14  Letter  of  DeSaussure  printed  in  Edmund  Quincy's  "  Life  of  Josiah 
Quincy,"  pp.  190,  191. 

15  "  City  Gazette  and  Daily  Advertiser  "  of  January  4,  1809,  as  reproduced 
in  "The  South  Carolina  Historical  and  Genealogical  Magazine,"  Vol.  II, 
(1901),  p.  163. 

16 The  Charleston  "City  Gazette  and  Daily  Advertiser"  of  December 
13,  1809.    MSS.  Legislative  Journals  at  Columbia. 
"  P.  8. 

18  In  1808  he  cast  some  vote  which  Fitzwilliam  Byrdsall  wrote  him  on 
November  6,  1842,  ("Correspondence,"  p.  861)  was  "a  glorious  democratic 
fact  in  your  favor  "  and  shows  that  "  you  were  in  1808  what  [Van  Buren] 
was  not  in  1821."    Calhoun  had  written  to  Byrdsall  of  this  vote  but  would 
not  allow  its  publication.    I  am  quite  unable  to  ascertain  what  it  was. 
Possibly  his  vote  for  Madison  for  President  was  referred  to. 

19  "  Sketch,"  p.  87.    B.  F.  Perry,  too  ("  Reminiscences  of  Public  Men," 
p.  92),  tells  this  same  story.    Joseph  Alston  was  Speaker  of  the  House 
during  Calhoun's  first  session,  at  least.     Cooper's  "  Statutes  at  Large,"  Vol. 
V,  p.  564- 


108  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

to  a  friend :  "  I  am  afraid  I  shall  find  this  long,  gawky  fellow 
from  Abbeville  hard  to  manage." 

One  story  is  told  in  the  "  Autobiography  "  of  Calhoun's  do- 
ings during  his  short  career  in  the  State  Legislature, —  a  story 
that  may  serve  to  illustrate  a  faculty  that  we  shall  find  clearly 
enough  shown  again  in  later  and  sadder  years.  Calhoun  un- 
doubtedly had  his  foibles,  and  made  awful  human  blunders ;  but 
at  times  his  mind  seemed  to  cut  its  way  through  the  most  in- 
tricate circumstances,  and  he  would  then  foretell  events  in  a 
fashion  little  short  of  startling.  I  think  this  usually  hap- 
pened when  there  was  some  great  underlying  principle  at  hand, 
the  effect  of  which  he  was  able  to  foresee  with  a  mental  grasp 
shared  by  few  men,  and  his  mind,  realizing  this  one  vital 
element  of  coming  events,  would  follow  it  out, —  to  at  least 
some  of  its  results, —  with  relentless  power. 

It  may  be  surmised  that  in  these  cases  in  which  Calhoun  saw 
so  much  further  ahead  than  did  his  fellows  he  found  a  nat- 
ural satisfaction  in  turning  out  to  be  right.  He  was  apparently 
not  devoid  of  pride  of  intellect,  and  doubtless  this  is  the  reason 
why  this  particular  instance  finds  a  place  in  his  "Autobi- 
ography." 

He  tells  us  20  that 

...  It  was  not  long  after  he  took  his  seat  [in  the  State  Legis- 
lature] before  he  distinguished  himself.  Early  in  the  session 
an  informal  meeting  of  the  Republican  portion  of  the  members 
was  called  to  nominate  candidates  for  the  places  of  President 
and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Madison  was 
nominated  for  the  presidency  without  opposition.  When  the 
nomination  for  the  vice-presidency  was  presented,  Mr.  Calhoun 
embraced  the  occasion  to  present  his  opinion  in  reference  to  com- 
ing events,  as  bearing  on  the  nomination.  He  reviewed  the 
state  of  the  relations  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Brit- 
ain and  France,  the  two  great  belligerents  which  were  then 
struggling  for  mastery,  and  in  their  struggle  trampling  on  the 
rights  of  neutrals,  and  especially  ours;  he  touched  on  the  re- 
strictive system  which  had  been  resorted  to  by  the  government  to 
protect  our  rights,  and  expressed  his  doubt  of  its  efficacy,  and 

20  "  Autobiography,"  p.  7. 


ENTRANCE  UPON  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS         109 

the  conviction  that  a  war  with  Great  Britain  would  be  unavoid- 
able. "  It  was,"  he  said,  "  in  this  state  of  things  of  the  ut- 
most importance  that  the  ranks  of  the  Republican  party  should 
be  preserved  undisturbed  and  unbroken  by  faction  or  discord." 
He  then  adverted  to  the  fact,  that  a  discontented  portion  of 
the  party  had  given  unequivocal  evidence  of  rallying  round  the 
name  of  the  venerable  vice-president,  George  Clinton  (whose  re- 
nomination  was  proposed),  and  of  whom  he  spoke  highly;  but 
he  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that  should  he  be  nominated  and  re- 
elected,  he  would  become  the  nucleus  of  all  the  discontented 
portion  of  the  party,  and  thus  make  a  formidable  division  in 
its  ranks  should  the  country  be  forced  into  war.  These  per- 
sons, he  predicted,  would  ultimately  rally  round  DeWitt  Clin- 
ton, the  nephew,  whom  he  described  as  a  man  of  distinguished 
talents  and  aspiring  disposition.  To  avoid  the  danger,  he  sug- 
gested the  name  of  John  Langdon,  of  New  Hampshire,  of  whom 
he  spoke  highly  both  as  to  talents  and  patriotism. 

It  was  Mr.  Calhoun's  first  effort  in  a  public  capacity.  The 
manner  and  matter  excited  great  applause ;  and  when  it  is  recol- 
lected that  these  remarks  preceded  the  declaration  of  war  more 
than  three  years,  and  how  events  happened  according  to  his 
anticipations,  it  affords  a  striking  proof  of  that  sagacity,  at  so 
early  a  period,  for  which  he  has  since  been  so  much  distinguished. 
It  at  once  gave  him  a  stand  among  the  most  distinguished  mem- 
bers of  the  -Legislature. 

The  pay  of  members  of  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  at 
this  time  was  "  a  sum  not  exceeding  three  dollars  a  day  dur- 
ing their  attendance  on,  going  to,  and  returning  from  the  legis- 
lature at  the  rate  of  thirty  miles  per  day/'  21  Nor  did  the  sit- 
tings last  long.  Indeed,  Calhoun's  two  sessions  made  up  to- 
gether only  nine  weeks 22  and  afforded  thus  but  scant  experi- 
ence for  the  highly  important  positions  he  was  soon  to  hold. 
He  must  undoubtedly  have  shown  marked  capacities  during 
this  short  time,  or  he  would  hardly  have  received  his  next  pro- 
motion. In  the  spring  or  summer  of  1810,  he  was  nominated 
for  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress.  His  opponent 

21  Statute  No.  1903  of  iQth  December,  1807,  confirming  a  prior  act  of 
1805,  the  constitutionality  of  which  seems  to  have  been  doubted.     Cooper's 
"  Statutes  at  Large,"  Vol.  V,  p.  546. 

22  "  Autobiography,"  p.  12. 


no  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

was  Gen.  John  A.  Elmore,  who  had,  according  to  Col.  Starke, 
been  nominated  by  those  timid  souls  who  feared  the  coming 
war  and  still  remembered  the  dreadful  days  when  "  Tarleton's 
red  dragoons  had  ridden  over  the  State."  Calhoun  Js  resolu- 
tions at  the  Abbeville  meeting  upon  the  Leopard  outrage  doubt- 
less pointed  him  out  as  the  natural  opponent  of  such  a  nomina- 
tion. He  is  said  by  Col.  Starke  to  have  conducted  a  most 
active  canvass,  and  it  was  early  in  the  day  all  over  with  his 
opponent.  The  world  has  often  been  said  to  belong  to  the 
young,  and  we  doubtless  have  in  this  instance  another  example 
of  youthful  hope  and  dash  triumphing  over  the  timid  hesita- 
tions of  age. 

Even  in  July  Calhoun  wrote  to  Mrs.  Colhoun  of  there  being 
"  no  doubt "  of  his  election  to  Congress  in  the  fall,  and  his 
"  Autobiography  "  says  that  he  was  elected  by  "  an  overwhelm- 
ing majority."  The  strongly  Federalist  Charleston  Courier, 
too,  reported  on  October  23,  1810,  that  there  was  "  no  doubt 
of  the  election  of  this  gentleman."  The  district  for  which 
he  was  chosen  was  composed  of  Abbeville,  Laurens  and  New- 
berry,  and  it  seems23  that  his  cousin,  Joseph  Calhoun,  who 
had  represented  the  district  during  two  Congresses,  retired  in 
his  favor. 

The  Twelfth  Congress,  to  which  Calhoun  had  thus  been 
elected  in  the  autumn  of  1810,  at  the  early  age  of  twenty-eight 
years,  met,  in  pursuance  of  the  call  of  the  President,  on  No- 
vember 4,  1811,  and  on  November  6  Calhoun  took  his  seat 
for  the  first  time  in  the  federal  councils,  where  for  the  better 
part  of  forty  years,  he  continued  to  hold  a  distinguished  posi- 
tion in  one  department  or  another. 

Before  we  enter  upon  the  absorbing  turmoil  of  the  politics 
of  that  day,  however,  it  will  be  well  to  devote  a  little  space 
to  other  events  of  the  period  which  throw  light  upon  his 
character.  It  has  been  seen  that  he  arrived  in  Washington  two 
days  after  the  opening  of  the  session.  But  even  so,  he  had 
been  obliged  to  leave  his  young  wife  a  very  short  time  after 
the  birth  of  their  first  child,  Andrew.  The  following  letters 

23  This  fact  is  stated  in  the  "Autobiography,"  p.  23,  and  I  believe  by 
other  writers. 


ENTRANCE  UPON  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS    in 

from  him  will  show  how  this  had  told  upon  him  as  well  as  give 
some  insight  into  the  interest  he  took  in  other  matters  than  poli- 
tics about  this  period. 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  CHARLESTON. 

WASHINGTON  2i8t  Decr  1811. 

DEAR  MOTHER,  I  received  last  week  your  affectionate  letter 
of  the  2Oth  of  the  last  month.  It  came  the  same  day  with 
Florides ;  tho'  hers  is  dated  on  the  26th.  It  contained  the  first  di- 
rect information  I  had  from  ,home ;  and  relieved  me  from  a 
load  of  anxiety.  I  left  Floride  and  our  little  son  at  so  critical 
a  period,  that  I  almost  felt  an  alarm  at  hearing  from  home  for 
fear  that  all  was  not  well.  I  feared  that  her  anxiety  of  mind 
at  my  leaving  her  might  injure  her  health;  situated  as  she  was; 
and  I  am  sure  I  have  great  cause  to  be  thankful  that  she  has 
entirely  recovered.  I  am  as  comfortably  fixed  here  as  I  could 
be;  and  have  nothing  to  render  me  uneasy  but  my  solicitude 
for  those  I  have  left  behind.  Our  society  is  delightful.  This 
place  is  quite  gay,  during  the  session;  but  I  do  not  partici- 
pate in  it  much  myself.  You  know  I  never  had  much  inclina- 
tion to  such  enjoyment.  I  am  invited  to  a  ball  to  the  French 
minister's  24  on  monday  next ;  and  to  dine  with  him  on  Christ- 
mas day;  but  for  political  reasons  have  declined  his  invitation. 
I  do  not  think  at  this  time  when  a  war  is  expected  with  Eng- 
land that  much  intimacy  should  exist  with  the  minister  of  her 
rival;  particularly  as  our  opponents  accuse  us  with  partiality 
towards  France. 

I  hope  you  will  impress  on  Floride  the  necessity  of  taking 
sufficient  exercise  when  the  weather  will  permit.  Nothing  is 
so  conducive  to  health;  and  I  think  she  is  rather  disinclined  to 
it.  Let  me  hear  from  you  often.  I  shall  not  be  backward  in 
answering  tho'  I  have  a  great  many  letters  to  write.  Remem- 
ber me  to  the  family  and  all  friends. 

To  MRS.  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN,  AT  ST.  JOHN'S,  S.  CA. 

WASHINGTON,  Ist  March  1812 

You  will  no  doubt,  my  dearest  Floride,  be  much  gratified 
and  suprised  to  find  the  bearer  of  this  letter  in  St.  Johns. 
Mr.  Cooper  called  on  me  this  morning  in  company  of  Mr.  Tal- 

2*J.  M.  P.  Serurier. 


ii2  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

mage  and  informed  me  that  he  was  on  his  way  to  the  south- 
ward. .  .  . 

I  dreamed  all  night  the  last  night  of  being  home  with  you ;  and 
nursing  our  dear  son;  and  regretted  when  I  awoke  to  find  it  a 
dream.  I  was  in  hopes  that  the  morning's  mail  would  bring  me  a 
letter  from  you ;  but  was  disappointed.  It  is  near  a  month  since 
I  had  one.  I  learned  by  a  letter  from  Mr.  Pickens  a  few  days 
since  that  you  were  all  well. 

Remember  me  to  our  mother  and  John. 

To  MRS.  FLORIDE  COLHOUN,  AT  CHARLESTON. 

WASHINGTON,  23d  Novr.  1812. 

DR  MOTHER,  I  am  induced  to  write  you  more  from  that  senti- 
ment of  respect  and  affection  which  I  hope  ever  to  entertain  for 
you,  than  any  particular  information  which  I  wish  to  communi- 
cate. My  esteem  for  you  has  rather  been  strengthened,  than 
abated,  by  the  present  intimate  tie  which  through  our  dear  Floride 
and  little  Andrew  subsists  between  us.  Your  deportment  long  be- 
fore our  connection  was  such  as  to  merit  my  warmest  affection. 
Floride's  letter  to  me  mentions  the  fine  health  of  Andrew  and 
his  disposition  to  feed.  I  think  it  would  be  advisable  for  her  to 
wean  him  as  soon  as  possible.  You  however  will  be  the  best 
judge.  I  fear  to  continue  him  longer  at  the  breast  will  be 
neither  for  his  or  her  health. 

If  Floride  bears  my  absence  as  badly  as  I  do  hers,  she  must 
occasionally  be  very  impatient.  I  know  you  will  not  fail  to 
keep  her  as  cheerful  as  possible.  I  often  look  forward  with  im- 
patience for  the  time  of  my  return. 

I  expect  we  shall  have  a  warm  and  important  Session.  We 
shall  have  to  encounter  every  impediment  that  opposition  can 
throw  in  the  way. 

If  rice  is  a  good  price  I  would  advise  you  to  sell.  The  present 
prospect  is  in  favour  of  its  keeping  up  and  being  high ;  but  the 
commercial  world  is  at  present  so  uncertain,  that  no  one  can 
anticipate  the  change.  I  would  be  glad  to  hear  from  you. 

The  journey  to  Washington  was  at  that  time  long  and  tedi- 
ous. To  traverse  the  two  Carolinas  and  Virginia  took  from 
ten  days'  to  three  weeks'  time, —  according  to  the  speed  of  the 
conveyance  and  state  of  the  roads, —  and  no  small  risk  of 
serious  accident  was  always  incurred.  Numbers  of  great  riv- 


ENTRANCE  UPON  PUBLIC  AFFAIRS         113 

ers  had  to  be  passed  on  the  way,  and  these  were  often  swollen 
by  rains  and  could  then  only  be  traversed  on  flat-boats  poled 
by  negroes.  Breakdowns  and  upsets  were  of  course  by  no 
means  infrequent  incidents,  and  awful  taverns  awaited  the 
traveller  at  every  stop.  Different  routes  were  followed,  but 
they  all  presented  merely  a  choice  of  evils,  and  Lowndes,  at 
least,  went  in  some  instances  by  water,  by  the  Philadelphia 
packet.  Calhoun  drove  in  1825  by  way  of  Columbia,  Camden, 
Cheraw,  Fayette,  Raleigh,  Warrenton,  and  Richmond.25 

Arrived  in  Washington,  too,  that  great  capital  of  the  future 
was  found  to  be  inconvenient  to  a  degree.  The  roads  in  and 
about  it  were  unspeakable,  and  the  accommodations  so  bad  that, 
though  Lowndes  found  them  in  December,  1811,  better  than 
his  imagination  had  painted,  he  yet  wrote  to  his  wife:  "  The 
comforts  of  a  city  are  such  in  winter  that  I  think  I  shall  spend 
the  next  (if  I  come  here  at  all)  in  Georgetown."  And  in 
1815  Macon  wrote  his  friend  Nicholson,  as  an  inducement 
to  a  visit :  "  I  live  at  Mrs.  Clark's  in  F.  Street,  not  far  east 
of  the  burnt  treasury  office.  .  .  .  The  house  is  about  middling, 
and  I  can  I  believe  get  a  bed  put  in  my  room  for  you,  if  you 
should  visit  the  city.  Let  me  know  a  day  beforehand,  that 
the  room  may  be  fixed/' 2^ 

Members  often,  or  generally,  lived  in  "  messes,"  and  such 
was  Calhoun's  home  in  the  capital  in  1811  and  again  in  1815. 
Lowndes  wrote  in  November  of  the  earlier  year  that  he  was 
established  with  a  pleasant  company,  which  would  probably 
consist  of  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Cheves  and  two  children,  Mr.  Clay, 
Mr.  Calhoun,  and  possibly  two  other  gentlemen.  Of  Cal- 
houn he  said  he  had  heard  a  very  favorable  character,  and 
found  him  well-informed,  easy  in  manners  and  amiable.  "  I 
like  him  already  better  than  any  member  of  our  mess,"  he  adds, 
and  then  goes  on  that,  as  theirs  was  certainly  the  strongest 
war  mess  in  Congress,  they  excited  some  surprise  and  even 
suspicion  by  attending  parties  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Foster,  the 

25  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  p.  233.  Mrs.  St.  Julien  Ravenel's  "  Life 
and  Times  of  William  Lowndes,"  p.  82. 

2«Mrs.  Ravenel's  "William  Lowndes,"  p.  91.  Wm.  E.  Dodd's  "Na- 
thaniel Macon,"  p.  302.  John  Quincy  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  p.  74. 


ii4  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

British  Minister.27  But  the  discomforts  of  the  capital  were 
very  petty  trifles  to  these  ardent  youths,  and  the  great  problems 
that  confronted  them  seem  to  have  been  merely  an  inspiration. 

27  Mrs.  Ravenel's  "William  Lowndes,"  pp.  84-86;  in.  Adams's 
"Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  57.  B.  F.  Perry  ("Reminiscences  of  Public 
Men,"  p.  245)  writes  that  Cheves,  Clay,  Calhoun,  Lowndes,  and  Bibb  of 
Kentucky  boarded  together,  and  that  their  mess  was  known  as  the  "  war 
mess." 


CHAPTER  VII 

WAR   WITH   ENGLAND 

The  House  of  Representatives  in  1811 — The  "War- 
Hawks  " —  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  —  Declaration 
of  War  —  The  Restrictive  System  and  its  Final  Abandonment. 

IN  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Twelfth  Congress 
was  to  be  found  a  brilliant  galaxy  of  young  men  from  the 
South  and  new  Southwest,  among  whom  were  Lowndes, 
Cheves,  Grundy,  Clay,  and  Calhoun.  Of  these,  Clay  had 
served  a  few  years  in  the  Senate  and  Cheves  a  part  of  the  pre- 
ceding term  in  the  House;  but  the  rest  were  all  new,  and,  as 
has  been  seen,  Calhoun's  legislative  experience  was  only  such 
as  he  had  gained  in  the  short  space  of  nine  weeks  in  the  State 
Legislature.  Webster  had  not  yet  reached  the  federal  coun- 
cils, and  was  at  this  time  and  for  a  few  years  later  still  engaged 
at  Rockingham  and  other  places  in  fulminating  against  the 
federal  government  those  bitter  anathemas,  which  contrast  so 
strangely  with  his  later  course.  All  the  young  members  named 
were  fired  with  the  splendid  hope  of  youth,  and  several  were 
destined  to  leave  an  undying  fame  behind  them.  Most,  or  all, 
owed  their  advancement  to  a  great  extent  to  their  course  upon 
one  single  subject. 

The  vital  question  of  that  day,  far  overshadowing  all  others, 
was  and  for  some  years  had  been  the  policy  that  should  be  fol- 
lowed by  our  new-born  country  in  the  war  of  giants  which  was 
then  devastating  the  civilized  world.  Neutrals  were  hardly 
allowed  to  exist,  and  their  rights  were  violated  at  every  turn 
by  the  two  main  contestants,  as  for  years  they  struggled  des- 
perately for  the  mastery.  When  we  look  back  to  that  day, 
the  question  most  open  to  doubt  is  which  of  the  two  did  us  the 
worst  wrongs.  As  soon  as  one  would  push  the  violations  a 
step  further,  in  the  hope  of  gaining  an  inch  upon  his  opponent, 


n6  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

he  was  rapidly  met  by  either  a  like  or  still  more  outrageous 
wrong  done  by  the  other,  and  long  before  1811  the  system 
had  grown  well-nigh  intolerable. 

These  questions  had  all  come  to  be  of  vital  moment  during 
the  preceding  administration  of  Jefferson,  and  that  peace- 
inclined  statesman  found  himself  confronted  with  awful  ques- 
tions growing  out  of  the  most  gigantic  wars  of  modern  times. 
It  was  the  policy  of  Napoleon  to  close  the  whole  continent  of 
Europe  against  British  trade,  and  it  was  equally  the  policy  of 
England  to  shut  off  all  trade  with  the  continent,  except  that 
which  she  controlled.  And  in  the  efforts  that  the  two  con- 
testants made  to  accomplish  these  ends,  our  young  country 
suffered  far  more  than  any  other  not  actively  engaged  in  the 
hostilities.  Indeed,  we  may  be  said  to  have  been  the  only 
neutral ;  and  in  this  fact  lies  one  of  the  main  motives  impelling 
us  to  the  course  we  long  followed.  The  carrying  trade  of 
the  world  seemed  to  lie  open  before  us,  ready  to  be  seized,  and 
it  was  a  prize  of  great  value.1  Our  hardy  seamen  reaped  vast 
profits  for  a  time  from  our  neutrality.  A  proper  national 
cupidity,  or  rather  a  wise  thriftiness,  pointed  never  so  clearly 
to  the  course  for  a  young  people  to  follow.  And  to  this  in- 
ducement of  self-interest,  ever  so  strong  an  incentive  to  na- 
tional action,  must  be  added  what  has  already  been  said, —  that 
our  union  and  nationality  were  still  in  the  pulpy  age  of  infancy, 
while  all  the  beliefs  of  the  party  in  power  tended  strongly  to 
lead  us  to  avoid  entangling  alliances  and  to  look  upon  war 
as  a  serious  menace  to  our  institutions. 

No  wonder  that,  under  these  circumstances,  Jefferson  began 
the  Struggle  for  Neutrality.  It  is  easy  enough  to-day,  when 
our  national  fabric  has  grown  as  tough  and  solid  as  the  bony 

1Hayne  well  said  in  his  speech  of  April  30,  1824,  on  the  tariff  (Benton's 
"  Abridgment,"  Vol.  VII,  p.  575)  :  "  The  fact  that  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  French  Revolution  to  the  fall  of  Napoleon,  the  United  States 
occupied  a  neutral  position,  and  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  monopolizing 
the  carrying  trade,  and  commanding  for  her  breadstuffs  the  markets  of 
the  world,  would  sufficiently  account,  not  only  for  the  rapid  growth  and 
extraordinary  prosperity  of  our  country,  but  also  for  the  temporary  de- 
pression which  must  result  from  the  loss  of  these  advantages.  Our 
fields  have  almost  literally  been  fertilized  by  the  blood  of  Europe.  We 
have  fattened  on  the  crimes  of  her  tyrants  and  the  sufferings  of  her 
people." 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  117 

frame  of  early  manhood,  to  decry  his  course  as  pusillanimous 
and  to  say  that  he  ought  to  have  followed  this  or  that  other 
policy,  but  these  carping  critics  of  a  time  long  gone  by  have 
an  easy  task  in  finding  fault  without  responsibility  and  with 
little  appreciation  of  the  conditions  of  the  day,  while  Jeffer- 
son and  his  successor  acted  under  the  highest  responsibility 
and  with  the  widest  knowledge  of  surrounding  circumstances. 
The  effort  was  then  made  to  avoid  taking  part  in  the  wars 
of  the  period,  and  though  it  failed  after  a  series  of  troublous 
years,  no  one  can  say  that  the  course  was  not  a  wise  one  at 
the  time,  or  even  absolutely  necessary  to  our  existence.  Cal- 
houn,  who  was  not  in  general  a  believer  in  the  restrictive  sys- 
tem, tried  a  few  years  later  to  picture  the  reasons  that  led  us 
to  follow  it.  He  said :  2 

The  restrictive  system  sprung  from  an  unusual  state  of  things ; 
it  was  a  pacific  policy,  arising  from  the  extraordinary  state  of  the 
world  at  the  time  we  embarked  in  it  —  and  of  course  was  a  tem- 
porary rather  than  a  permanent  policy.  ...  It  originated  at  a 
moment  when  every  power  on  the  continent  of  Europe  was  arrayed 
against  Great  Britain,  and  no  one  country  in  Europe  was  then 
interested  in  the  support  or  defence  of  neutral  rights.  There 
was  scarcely  a  port  in  Europe,  which  at  the  time  of  our  restrictive 
system  was  not  occluded  to  British  commerce.  In  this  state  of 
things,  the  United  States,  in  order  to  avoid  war,  not  having  taken 
the  resolution  at  that  time  to  declare  war,  resorted  to  the  restrictive 
system  —  resorted  to  it,  because  the  extraordinary  state  of  the 
European  world  presented  a  prospect  that  the  strong  pressure  of 
this  system  on  Great  Britain  might  save  the  nation  from  a  war 
into  which  we  have  since  been  reluctantly  drawn. 

It  is  by  no  means  clear,  moreover,  that  the  restrictive  system 
was  necessarily  doomed  to  failure  from  the  start.  With  all 
the  continent  of  Europe  closed  to  British  commerce,  our 
refusal  to  trade  with  her  undoubtedly  brought  dreadful  dis- 
tress upon  her  manufacturing  interests  and  led  to  bitter  com- 
plaints on  the  part  of  these  against  their  own  government. 
But,  as  the  wars  went  on  and  Napoleon's  colossal  power  began 
suddenly  to  totter  under  the  mad  course  he  followed,  large 

2  Speech  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  April  6,  1814,  upon  Bill 
to  Repeal  the  Embargo  and  Other  Restrictive  Measures.  Annals  of  Con- 
gress, Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1813-14,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1962,  1963. 


ii8  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

parts  of  the  continent  of  Europe  broke  away  from  him  and 
started  in  to  trade  with  Great  Britain.  This  at  once  relieved 
the  distress  caused  by  our  restrictive  measures,  and  Calhoun, 
for  one,  saw  how  such  a  change  of  circumstances  would  lessen 
the  pressure  exerted  by  our  course  and  thought3  that  true 
policy  then  called  upon  us  to  open  our  ports  to  neutral  nations, 
which  would  soon,  in  his  opinion,  make  common  cause  with  us. 

Whether  it  might  possibly  have  succeeded  or  not,  the  re- 
strictive system  was  palpably  failing  in  the  course  of  a  few 
years,  and  peace-loving  Madison  in  turn  found  himself  face 
to  face  with  the  necessity  of  discovering  some  other  course  to 
follow.  It  was  well-nigh  impossible,  however,  to  unite  the 
country  upon  any  single  point  relating  to  the  subject.  One 
question  much  discussed  at  that  time, —  as  well  as  ever  since, — • 
was  as  to  which  of  the  great  belligerents  had  inflicted  the  worst 
outrages  upon  us,  but  it  is  hard  to  understand  how  this  can 
to-day  be  doubted. 

In  the  mere  enforcement  of  utterly  defenseless  shipping 
rules,  there  was  probably  little  choice  between  the  two;  but 
to  this  species  of  wrong  the  British  added  one  other  outrage 
of  a  most  glaring  and  irritating  kind.  Their  claim  to  stop 
American  ships  and  impress  into  the  British  service  such  men 
as  a  roving  captain,  with  a  short  crew,  might  choose  to  think 
were  born  in  Great  Britain,  was  not  only  the  assertion  of  a 
right  that  no  nation  of  power  would  submit  to  for  a  moment 
but  was  also  sure  to  lead  to  interminable  friction  in  its  ad- 
ministration, even  admitting  the  doctrine  of  permanent  alle- 
giance, upon  which  it  was  based.  And  this  doctrine  was  one 
that  America  could  not  possibly  admit.  Finally,  add  to  im- 
pressment the  high-handed  attack  upon  the  American  man-of- 
war  Chesapeake,  and  surely  the  British  must  be  admitted  to 
have  gone  even  further  in  the  system  of  wrongs  inflicted  upon 
us  than  did  the  French,  with  whom  we  had  not  quite  so  many 
points  of  contact. 

The  result  of  all  this  was  that,  while  a  large  number, —  es- 
pecially in  New  England, —  favored  some  sort  of  alliance  with 
Great  Britain,  there  was  a  growing  sentiment  in  the  country 
for  a  declaration  of  war  against  her.  Dubbed  by  their  op- 

8  Ibid.,  p.  1964. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  119 

ponents  "  war-hawks/'  the  leaders  of  this  view  were  full  of 
the  inspiration  and  buoyancy  of  youth,  and  steadily  grew  in 
power  and  influence.  They  had  in  general  supported  the  sys- 
tem of  neutrality  carried  out  by  Jefferson  and  Madison,  but 
only  because  any  other  course  was  impossible  under  the  then 
circumstances.  By  the  date  of  the  Twelfth  Congress,  how- 
ever, public  opinion  in  favor  of  war  had  ripened  a  good  deal 
and  the  power  and  numbers  of  the  war-hawks  had  vastly 
grown.  They  were  indeed  soon  found  to  be  in  absolute  con- 
trol in  that  body.  On  the  very  first  ballot,  one  of  the  most 
ultra  of  them,  Henry  Clay,  was  elected  Speaker  by  seventy- 
five  votes  to  thirty-eight  for  Bibb  of  Georgia,  the  peace  candi- 
date, and  three  for  Macon.  The  President's  Message,  more- 
over, was  in  its  general  features  warlike,  though  the  opinion 
of  the  day  seems  to  have  been4  that  many  of  its  expressions 
were  ambiguous ;  and  it  thus  led  some  to  wonder  what  course 
was  really  intended  to  be  followed. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives  no  possible  room  was  left 
for  doubt.  Not  only  was  Clay's  election  to  the  Speakership  a 
perfectly  clear  indication,  but  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, of  which  it  will  shortly  be  seen  that  Calhoun  was  a 
member,  early  proposed  measures  5  to  fill  the  existing  regi- 
ments and  to  raise  ten  thousand  additional  regulars,  as  well 
as  to  prepare  the  militia  and  fit  out  all  public  vessels.  Bills 
for  some  of  these  purposes  became  laws,  and  soon  the  Consti- 
tution, the  Chesapeake,  and  the  Adams  were  under  process  of 
preparation.  These  increases  in  the  navy  were  hardly  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  traditions  of  Jefferson  and  the  Republican 
party,  but  none  the  less  the  ardent  youths  who  then  guided 
its  destiny  were  convinced  of  their  absolute  necessity  and  vio- 
lated so  far  the  inherited  beliefs  of  the  past.  )They  tried  also 
to  include  in  the  Naval  Bill  a  section  to  authorize  ten  new 
frigates,  but  failed  to  get  it  through  the  Hou^v>Cheves,  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs,  was  braced 

*  Calhoun's  "  Autobiography,"  p.  9. 

5  Mr.  Cralle  thought  that  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Re- 
lations, which  recommended  these  measures,  was  drawn  by  Calhoun ;  "  Ad- 
vertisement" to  Vol.  V  of  Calhoun's  "Works."  See  the  "Report"  in 
ibid.,  pp.  1-7. 


120  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

up  in  this  effort  by  Quincy  6  in  the  House,  and  Calhoun  7  and 
doubtless  many  of  the  war-hawks  earnestly  supported  the 
measure.  A  bill  to  organize  the  militia  upon  a  uniform  plan 
also  failed. 

Despite  Calhoun's  youth  and  lack  of  experience,  he  made  his 
mark  at  once  and  it  is  doubtless  true,  as  he  writes,8  that  his 
reputation  had  preceded  him.  Otherwise,  we  should  certainly 
not  find  him  selected  at  the  beginning  of  his  first  session  to 
the  second  place  on  the  vital  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations. 
Peter  B.  Porter,  of  New  York,  was  chairman,  and  the  other 
Republican  members  were  Calhoun  and  Felix  Grundy  of 
Tennessee.  The  redoubtable  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  and 
Philip  Barton  Key  from  Maryland  were  the  Federalists. 
Calhoun's  responsibilities,  too,  were  soon  increased  by  the  with- 
drawal qf  Porter  from  Congress  and  Calhoun's  consequent 
advance  to  the  chairmanship,  as  well  as  by  a  vote  of  the  House, 
which  charged  his  committee  with  many  of  the  duties  properly 
belonging  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs.9 

Calhoun's  maiden  speech  was  made  on  the  fifth  of  Decem- 
ber, 1811,  upon  the  pending  bill  for  a  new  apportionment;  and 
it  is  curious  to  find  him  already  at  this  early  day  urging  that 
adherence  to  principle  and  setting  aside  of  the  selfish  interests 
of  the  moment  which  so  often  characterized  him  at  a  later 
period.  I  think,  too,  he  allows  his  fancy  to  run  away  with  him 
a  little  as  to  the  dangerous  consequences  to  flow  from  the 
course  opposed  to  that  which  he  was  advocating;  and  here 
seems  to  me  to  be  one  more  tendency  of  his  career  in  general, 
But  other  portions  of  the  speech  were  hardly  in  accord  with 
what  he  would  have  said  later  as  to  home  interests.  The 
House  had  passed  a  bill  upon  the  subject,  Uut  this  had  been 
amended  in  the  Senate  as  to  the  ratio  of  numbers  to  compose  a 
Representative  district,  and  the  pending  question  was  whether 
the  House  should  insist  on  its  bill  or  concur  in  the  Senate 

e  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  I,  1811-12, 
pp.  Q49/-68.  Quincy  is  said  by  his  biographer  to  have  made  this  speech 
"  at  the  -suggestion  of  some  of  these  [southern]  members,  and  especially 
of  Mr.  Calhoun."  Quincy's  "  Quincy,"  p.  242. 

7  "  Autobiography,"  p.  n. 

•/Wd.,  p.  8. 

9  Ibid.,  p.  la. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  121 

amendment.  It  will  be  observed  that  of  course  the  matter  was 
one  in  which  the  Senate  had  no  actual  interest,  its  basis  of 
membership  being  forever  fixed  by  the  fundamental  law,  and 
the  constitutional  provision  as  to  the  House  being  the  sole 
judge  of  the  qualifications  and  returns  of  its  own  members  was 
thought  by  some  to  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  matter. 
Calhoun  spoke  as  follows : 10 

Before  the  bill  had  gone  to  the  Senate,  it  excited  but  very 
little  interest  with  me.  All  that  I  had  heard  from  gentlemen 
on  every  side  convinced  me  that  is  was  a  squabble  among  the 
several  States  which  should  bear  the  loss  of  large  fractions, 
rather  than  a  serious  division  on  principle,  of  one  ratio  in  prefer- 
ence to  another.  Were  I  governed  alone  by  fractions,  I  should 
not  rise  this  day,  nor  oppose  a  concurrence  with  the  Senate,  from 
the  pride  of  opinion;  for  the  ratio  which  the  Senate  have  fixed, 
is  in  accordance  with  my  vote  on  the  original  bill,  although  37,000 
will  leave  my  State  with  a  less  fraction  unrepresented  than  35,- 
ooo ;  but  fractions  are  not  my  object,  I  am  not  here  to  repre- 
sent my  State  alone.  I  renounce  the  idea.  And  I  will  show, 
by  my  vote,  that  I  contend  for  the  interests  of  the  whole  people 
of  this  community.  The  present  question,  of  concurring  in  the 
amendment  of  the  Senate,  seemed  to  be  totally  different,  and 
much  more  important  than  the  original  one.  As  it  now  stands, 
it  is  a  case  of  disagreement  between  the  two  Houses,  and  the 
contest  is,  which  shall  recede.  A  contest  of  this  kind  (on  the 
census  bill)  was  one  of  the  most  serious  consequences  to  this 
House.  The  Senate,  by  persistence,  must  force  this  body  either 
to  adopt  their  ratio,  or,  if  that  cannot  be  effected,  even  annihilate 
this  branch  of  the  Legislature.  I  consider  this  a  case  of  omis- 
sion in  our  excellent  constitution.  The  Constitution  makes  this 
House  the  sole  judge  of  the  qualifications  and  returns  of  its  own 
members.  This  is  supposed  to  vest  the  power  so  exclusively  in 
us,  that  a  few  days  since  in  a  debate  on  the  contested  election 
from  Virginia,  it  was  contended  with  much  force  of  argument,  that 
any  law  on  this  subject,  as  the  Senate  must  participate  in  it, 
would  be  unconstitutional.  .  .  . 

In  the  ordinary  course  of  legislation,  this  [division  of  powers] 
furnished  ample  security.  Far  different  on  the  census  bill.  Here 

10  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  I,  1811-12, 
pp.  404-406. 


122  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  whole  is  inverted.  The  vote  of  the  Senate  is  no  longer  the 
means  of  protection  to  itself,  but  becomes  a  fatal  means  of  as- 
sailing this  House.  What  remedy  do  I  propose?  I  propose  a 
means  in  strict  unison  with  the  Constitution  and  furnished  by 
itself.  Let  us  act  with  a  fixed  determination :  and  not  accede  to 
the  amendment  of  the  Senate.  That  body,  unaided  by  precedent 
and  opposed  by  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  must  recede.  Let 
us  follow  the  example  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  England,  in 
relation  to  money  bills,  and  the  same  result  will  follow  —  but  by 
no  means  reverse  that  example. 

The  Senate  strengthened  by  precedent,  will  hereafter  control 
us  completely.  What  inducement  can  gentlemen  have  to  make 
the  surrender  at  this  time?  None  can  be  weaker,  than  because 
some  of  the  States  have,  by  the  ratio  inserted  in  the  Senate, 
small  fractions,  and  one  section  of  the  Union  has  by  it  com- 
paratively gained.  Will  gentlemen  for  this  inconsiderable  gain 
make  so  great  a  sacrifice?  Particularly  those  from  large  States, 
who  are  the  greatest  gainers  by  large  fractions  ?  For  this  paltry 
gain,  more  apparent  than  real,  which  can  last  for  but  ten  years, 
they  surrender  a  principle  of  the  most  vital  importance  to  them. 
Mr.  Speaker,  I  wish  the  task  of  defending  this  important  point 
had  fallen  to  abler  hands.  I  feel  all  that  embarrassment  which 
a  young  man,  not  much  accustomed  to  public  speaking,  must 
necessarily  experience  the  first  time,  before  such  an  audience  and 
in  a  place  so  trying  to  the  voice  as  this  hall.  I  shall  be  happy, 
if  in  the  midst  of  my  embarrassments  I  have  been  intelligible 
and  have  expressed  myself  with  sufficient  caution  on  so  delicate 
a  point 

The  House  refused  at  this  stage  to  concur  in  the  Senate 
amendments,  but  the  Senate  was  very  positive  and  a  conference 
committee  had  to  report  their  inability  to  agree.  The  House 
then  receded  from  its  disagreement  to  the  amendments  by  a 
vote  of  72  to  62  "  after  much  debate,"  which  is  not,  however, 
reported.  Calhoun  adhered  to  his  opinion  and  voted  Nay. 
The  Senate  has  generally,  I  understand,  in  recent  years  silently 
conceded  to  the  House  the  regulation  of  the  apportionment 
after  the  census,  but  there  have  been  instances  to  the  con-, 
trary  and  it  may  be  surmised  that  there  will  be  others.  Such 
a  right  in  one  House  absolutely  dependent  on  the  mere  ac- 
quiescence of  the  other  is  highly  unsubstantial,  and,  at  least, 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  123 

long  practice  alone  can  establish  it  as  a  principle.  None  the 
less,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Calhoun's  maiden  speech  was 
in  regard  to  a  difficult  question  of  constitutional  construction 
and  that  the  views  he  maintained  seem  to  be  on  the  way  to 
acceptance.  On  the  re-apportionment  after  the  census  of 
1840,  while  in  the  Senate,  he  still  recognized  this  earlier  belief 
of  his  and  said  that  "  in  fixing  a  ratio  of  apportionment,  they 
ought  to  have  very  great  respect  for  the  decisions  of  the  House, 
if  they  were  assured  the  House  had  deliberately  resolved  upon 
a  particular  ratio  [but  in  this  case  he  thought  that]  he  would 
be  acting  with  a  due  regard  to  the  wishes  of  that  body,  by 
giving  them  an  opportunity  to  review  and  reconsider  the 
matter.'*  " 

•  From  the  beginning  of  the  session,  and  more  especially  after 
his  advancement  to  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  Calhoun  occupied  a  position  of  great 
prominence  and  was  active  upon  all  the  measures  that  led  up 
to  the  war  and  had  to  do  with  its  prosecution.  He  must  have 
been  closely  in  the  confidence  of  the  administration  at  all 
times,  and  was  repeatedly  their  defender  on  the  floor  of  the 
House.  When  the  President's  Message  at  the  opening  of  the 
session  came  in,  that  part  of  it  which  related  to  foreign  affairs 
was,  in  accordance  with  custom,  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations.  And  then  at  once  the  members  of  that 
committee,  or  at  least  its  action,  was  most  closely  .scrutinized 
by  an  anxious  and  expectant  public.  The  next  move  in  the 
vital  question  of  War  or  Peace  lay  in  their  hands. 

They  reported  early  in  December,  recommending  various 
measures  of  preparation  for  war, —  some  of  which  have  been 
mentioned  already, —  and  out  of  their  suggestions  arose  quite 
an  extensive  debate  upon  the  general  subject.  This  was  of 
course  opened  by  the  chairman,  Porter,  who  was  followed 
by  Grundy  on  the  same  side.  The  erratic  and  very  dangerous 
John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  next  spoke  in  opposition,  and  was 
answered  by  Johnson  of  Kentucky  and  Wright  of  Maryland. 
Their  speeches  were  delivered  on  December  10,  and  Calhoun 

11 "  Congressional  Globe,"  Twenty-Seventh  Congress,  Second  Session, 
PP-  538,  540,  545-  Ibid.,  Appendix,  p.  438. 


124  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

then  announced, —  doubtless  in  accordance  with  pre-arrange- 
ment  by  leading  men, —  his  wish  to  support  the  report  of  the 
committee  of  which  he  was  a  member;  but  moved  an  adjourn- 
ment on  account  of  the  lateness  of  the  hour.  He  tells  us  that 
this  discussion  "  from  the  beginning  excited  profound  interest, 
both  in  the  body  and  the  crowded  audience  daily  assembled  in 
the  lobby  and  galleries,  and  this  interest  had  increased  as  the 
discussion  advanced.  It  was  Mr.  Calhoun's  first  speech  in 
Congress,  except  a  few  brief  remarks  on  the  Apportionment 
Bill.  The  trial  was  a  severe  one ;  expectation  was  high.  The 
question  was  of  the  greatest  magnitude,  and  he  to  whom  he 
had  to  reply,  a  veterah  statesman  of  unsurpassed  eloquence." 

It  was  certainly  a  great  trial  for  a  young  man  not  yet  twen- 
ty-nine,—  who  had  not  brushed  up  much  against  leading  men 
and  whose  only  public  experience  consisted  of  a  few  weeks 
in  his  State  Legislature, —  to  have  to  answer  the  fiery  and 
often  brutal  Randolph,  and  it  may  well  be  that  Calhoun  had 
many  a  nervous  moment  until  he  had  acquitted  himself  of 
his  task  on  December  I2th,  two  days  later.  He  writes  that 
when  he  closed  "  he  was  greeted  by  the  great  body  of  the  party 
for  his  successful  effort,  and  thenceforward  took  rank  with 
the  ablest  and  most  influential  members  of  the  body." 

The  press  of  the  day,  too,  spoke  in  high  terms  of  his  speech, 
Ritchie  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer  comparing  him  to  Fox  and 
recognizing  in  him  "  one  of  the  master-spirits  who  stamp  their 
names  upon  the  age  in  which  they  live,"  besides  descanting  on 
his  power  of  "  felling  down  the  errors  of  his  opponents  with 
the  club  of  Hercules."  12  The  strained  eloquence  of  this  com- 
mentator may  excite  a  smile,  but  it  is  plain  beyond  peradven- 
ture  that  the  speech  was  a  great  success  and  served  to  intro- 
duce to  the  public  another  leading  statesman  in  the  ranks  of 
the  war-hawks.  It  was  in  part  as  follows: 

MR.  SPEAKER:  I  understand  the  opinion  of  the  Committee 
of  Foreign  Relations  differently  from  what  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  (Mr.  Randolph)  has  stated  to  be  his  impression.  I 
certainly  understood  that  committee  as  recommending  the  meas- 
ures now  before  the  House  as  a  preparation  for  war.  .  .  .  Sir, 

12  For  matters  quoted  from  Ritchie,  see  "  Autobiography,"  pp.  9,  10. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  125 

I  might  prove  the  war,  should  it  ensue,  justifiable,  by  the  express 
admissions  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia;  and  necessary,  by 
facts  undoubted  and  universally  admitted,  such  as  that  gentle- 
man did  not  pretend  to  controvert.  The  extent,  duration,  and 
character  of  the  injuries  received;  the  failure  of  those  peaceful 
means  heretofore  resorted  to  for  the  redress  of  our  wrongs,  is  my 
proof  that  it  is  necessary.  Why  should  I  mention  the  impress- 
ment of  our  seamen;  depredation  on  every  branch  of  our  com- 
merce, including  the  direct  export  trade,  continued  for  years,  and 
made  under  laws  which  professedly  undertake  to  regulate  our 
trade  with  other  nations;  negotiation  resorted  to  time  after 
time,  till  it  is  become  hopeless ;  the  restrictive  system  persisted  in 
to  avoid  war,  and  in  the  vain  expectation  of  returning  justice? 
The  evil  still  grows,  and  in  each  succeeding  year  swells  in  extent 
and  pretension  beyond  the  preceding.  .  .  .  The  first  argument  of 
the  gentleman  which  I  shall  notice,  is  the  unprepared  state  of  the 
country.  Whatever  weight  this  argument  might  have,  in  a  ques- 
tion of  immediate  war,  it  surely  has  little  in  that  of  preparation 
for  it.  T(  If  our  country  is  unprepared,  let  us  remedy  the  evil  as 
soon  as  possible.  .  .  .  But  it  may  be,  and  I  believe  was  said, 
that  the  nation  will  not  pay  taxes,  because  the  rights  violated  are 
not  worth  defending,  or  that  the  defence  will  cost  more  than 
the  profit.  Sir,  I  here  enter  my  most  solemn  protest  against  this 
low  and  "  calculating  avarice  "  entering  this  hall  of  legislation. 
It  is  only  fit  for  shops  and  counting-houses,  and  ought  not  to 
disgrace  the  seat  of  sovereignty  by  its  squalid  and  vile  appear- 
ance. Whenever  it  touches  a  sovereign  power,  the  nation  is 
ruined.  It  is  too  short-sighted  to  defend  itself.  It  is  an  unprom- 
ising spirit,  always  ready  to  yield  a  part  to  save  the  balance. 
It  is  too  timid  to  have  in  itself  the  laws  of  self-preservation.  It 
is  never  safe  but  under  the  shield  of  honor.  Sir,  I  only  know 
of  one  principle  to  make  a  nation  great,  to  produce  in  this  coun- 
try not  the  form  but  real  spirit  of  union,  and  that  is  to  protect 
every  citizen  in  the  lawful  pursuit  of  his  business.  He  will  then 
feel  that  he  is  backed  by  the  Government;  that  its  arm  is  his 
arms;  and  will  rejoice  in  its  increased  strength  and  prosperity. 
Protection  and  patriotism  are  reciprocal.  This  is  the  road  that 
all  great  nations  have  trod.  Sir,  I  am  not  versed  in  this  cal- 
culating policy;  and  will  not,  therefore,  pretend  to  estimate  in 
dollars  and  cents  the  value  of  national  independence,  or  national 
affection.  I  cannot  dare  to  measure,  in  shillings  and  pence,  the 


126  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

misery,  the  stripes,  and  the  slavery  of  our  impressed  seamen ;  nor 
even  to  value  our  shipping,  commercial  and  agricultural  losses, 
under  the  Orders  in  Council  and  the  British  system  of  block- 
ade. .  .  .  ,'• 

Sir,  .  .  .  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  attributes  preparation 
for  war  to  everything  but  its  true  cause.  He  endeavored  to  find 
it  in  the  probable  rise  in  hemp.  He  represents  the  people  of 
the  Western  States  as  willing  to  plunge  the  country  into  war 
for  such  base  and  precarious  motives.  I  will  not  reason  on  this 
point.  I  see  the  cause  of  their  ardor,  not  in  such  base  motives, 
but  in  their  known  patriotism  and  disinterestedness.  No  less  mer- 
cenary is  the  reason  which  he  attributes  to  the  Southern  States. 
He  says  that  the  non-importation  has  reduced  cotton  to  nothing, 
which  has  produced  a  feverish  impatience.  Sir,  I  acknowledge 
the  cotton  of  our  farms  is  worth  but  little ;  but  not  for  the  cause 
assigned  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  The  people  of  that 
section  do  not  reason  as  he  does ;  they  do  not  attribute  it  to  the 
efforts  of  their  Government  to  maintain  the  peace  and  inde- 
pendence of  their  country;  they  see  in  the  low  price  of  the  pro- 
duce the  hand  of  foreign  injustice;  they  know  well,  without  the 
market  to  the  Continent,  the  deep  and  steady  current  of  supply 
will  glut  that  of  Great  Britain;  they  are  not  prepared  for  the 
colonial  state  to  which  again  that  Power  is  endeavoring  to  re- 
duce us.  The  manly  spirit  of  that  section  of  our  country  will 
not  submit  to  be  regulated  by  any  foreign  Power.13  .  .  . 

When  measures  of  preparation  were  so  openly  making,  it 
was  likely  that  war  was  not  far  distant.  The  ardor  for  it 
grew,  too,  tinder  the  powerful  impulse  of  our  war-hawks, 
while  the  dangers  vanished  to  nought  in  their  bubbling  juven- 
ile fancies.  On  May  6,  upon  a  petition  for  the  repeal  of  the 
embargo,  Calhoun  was  evidently  quite  carried  away  by  his 
feelings  and  said,  "  So  far  from  being  unprepared,  sir,  I  be- 
lieve that,  in  four  weeks  from  the  time  that  a  declaration  of 
war  is  heard  on  our  frontier,  the  whole  of  Upper  and  part 
of  Lower  Canada  will  be  in  our  possession."  14 

What  a  rude  awakening  must  not  Hull's  surrender  and  our 
other  disasters  have  been  to  such  youthful  exuberance!  The 

13  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  I,  1811-12, 
pp.  476-483. 

14  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  II,  1811-12, 
P.  1397. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  127 

sad  disillusions  had  their  effect,  and  in  less  than  two  years 
this  ardent  youth,  chastened  by  experience,  is  to  be  found  ex- 
pressing his  sorrow  "  to  see  on  our  side  considerable  inactiv- 
ity, whilst  on  the  side  of  the  enemy  we  behold  vigilance  well 
worthy  of  our  imitation."  15  But  at  the  same  time,  he  and 
the  other  leaders  were  untiring  in  their  efforts  on  behalf  of 
measures  to  show  a  united  front  to  the  enemy  and  for  the 
most  active  prosecution  of  hostilities,16  Calhoun  insisting  in 
1814  that  "  a  regular  force  of  at  least  fifty  thousand  ought  to 
be  ready  to  act  against  Canada  by  the  first  of  May,  or  June, 
at  farthest."  17 

Randolph  had  for  years  been  a  thorn  in  the  side  of  the  ad- 
ministration, and  he  was  certainly  a  most  unbridled  member, 
his  caustic  tongue  goading  opponents  to  fury,  while  the  long 
and  rambling  speeches  he  often  indulged  in  made  most  serious 
inroads  upon  the  time  of  the  House.  The  Annals,  speaking 
in  1816  of  what  was  probably  an  outrageous  tirade  by  this 
erratic  genius,  explain  that  "  the  length  of  his  speech,  which 
continued  three  days,  and  which  it  would  take  more  than  a 
week  to  write  off  from  the  reporter's  brief  notes,  prevents 
its  publication."  18  It  was  possibly  in  part  for  the  purpose 
of  curbing  these  endless  outbursts  19  that  the  young  and  bold 
Henry  Clay  had  given  up  his  seat  in  the  Senate  and  entered 
the  House.  Nor  was  it  long  before  the  new  Speaker  was 
called  upon  to  exercise  the  function  of  suppression. 

Toward  the  end  of  May,  1812,  rumors  were  generally  cur- 
rent that  it  was  intended  in  a  few  days  to  declare  war,  and 
Randolph,  who  was  bitterly  opposed  to  this  measure,  began 
one  of  his  wordy  attacks.  He  spoke  on  no  pending  measure 
and  was  beginning  to  ramble  far  afield  as  to  these  mere  ru- 
mors, when  Calhoun  called  him  to  order  for  speaking  on  war, 
while  no  such  question  was  before  the  House. 

15  Ibid.,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1813-14,  Vol.  I,  p.  870. 

16  Ibid.f  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  I,  181 1-12,  pp.  616,  1080. 
Only  a  carping  critic  would  find  any  inconsistency  with  Calhoun's  later 
career  in  his  objection  to  a  portion  of  the  proposed  militia  law^  that  it 
would  "  leave  it  in  the  power  of  the  States  to  lock  up  these  arms  in  arse- 
nals." 

17  Ibid.,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Third  Session,  1814^-15',  Vol.  Ill,  p.  467. 

18  Ibid.,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16,  p.  840. 

«  Mallory's  "  Life  and  Speeches  of  Henry  Clay,"  Vol.  I,  p.  48,  so  states. 


128  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

At  the  moment,  Clay  was  absent  and  the  Chair  was  occu- 
pied by  the  former  Speaker,  Bibb.  He  decided  against  the 
point  of  order,  and  then  Randolph, —  so  Calhoun  said  20  many 
years  later, —  turned  round  to  Calhoun  "  and  in  his  peculiar 
sarcastic  manner  returned  him  his  thanks,  stating  that  he  was 
very  nearly  exhausted  and  the  interruption  had  given  him 
time  to  recruit." 

But  no  biting  manner  could  stop  the  young  war-hawks, 
with  the  reins  of  power  in  their  hands.  Clay, —  perhaps  sent 
for, —  soon  took  Bibb's  place,  and  then  Calhoun,  "  conceiving 
from  his  [Clay's]  manner  that  he  did  not  concur  with  the  de- 
cision of  Dr.  Bibb,  "  again  insisted  that  Randolph  must  sub- 
mit to  the  House  the  proposition  he  intended  to  make,  at  the 
same  time  ironically  telling  the  Roanoke  member  that  he 
would  thus  give  him  a  chance  to  thank  him  again.  Clay  at 
once  decided  that  the  point  of  order  was  "  unquestionably  " 
correct,  "  and  then  followed  a  scene  of  deep  excitement." 
Randolph,  after  no  little  wrangling  and  after  the  loss  of  his 
appeal  from  the  decision,  offered  a  resolution  that  "  under  ex- 
isting circumstances,  it  is  inexpedient  to  resort  to  war  against 
Great  Britain,"  meaning,  of  course,  to  string  his  speech  to 
this  and  try  to  weaken  the  chances  for  a  declaration.  But 
his  resolution  was  not  seconded,  and  Clay  held  that  he  could 
not  speak,  unless  the  House  should  take  up  the  subject.  Ran- 
dolph appealed  from  this  decision  also,  but  later  withdrew  his 
appeal,  and  thus  the  most  unruly  of  members  was  at  last 
stopped  for  once  and  forced  to  hold  his  peace.  The  intended 
speech  was  not  made,  and  Randolph  and  Clay  sought  another 
forum  in  the  public  prints,  where  the  problems  of  parliamen- 
tary law  were  discussed  by  them  at  some  length.21  It  is 
hardly  possible  to  doubt  that  this  choking  off  of  Randolph 
was  carried  out  in  pursuance  of  a  pretty  well-settled  plan  of 
the  young  leaders  to  do  so,  at  the  first  effort  on  Randolph's 
part  to  indulge  in  his  usual  habits. 

The  rumor  referred  to  by  Randolph  was  true  and  war  at. 
our  door.     On  Monday,  June  i,  a  confidential  message  was 

20  Speech  of  July  17,  1841,  in  the  Senate;  "Congressional  Globe," 
Twenty-Seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  215,  216. 

,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  II,  1811-12,  pp.  1451-79. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  129 

received  from  the  President,  the  House  was  cleared*  and  the 
message  then  read  in  secret  session.  It  reviewed  the  course 
of  England  and  insisted  that  she  in  reality  maintained  a  state 
of  war  against  us,  while  we  were  at  peace  with  her. 
"  Whether  the  United  States,"  so  Madison  went  on,  "  shall 
continue  passive  under  these  progressive  usurpations  ...  or, 
opposing  force  to  force  in  defence  of  their  national  rights 
shall  commit  a  just  cause  into  the  hands  of  the  Almighty  Dis- 
penser of  events  ...  is  a  solemn  question  which  the  Con- 
stitution wisely  confides  to  the  Legislative  Department  of  the 
Government.  In  recommending  it  to  their  early  deliberation, 
I  am  happy  in  the  assurance  that  the  decision  will  be  worthy 
the  enlightened  and  patriotic  councils  of  a  virtuous,  a  free,  and 
a  powerful  nation." 

The  message  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs,  and  on  June  3  Calhoun  reported  from  the  Com- 
mittee, reviewing  the  long  series  of  wrongs  done  us  by  Eng- 
land and  concluding  that  they  "  feel  no  hesitation  in  advising 
resistance  by  force.  .  .  .  Your  committee  recommend  an  im- 
mediate appeal  to  arms."  Quincy,  of  Massachusetts,  moved 
to  open  the  doors  and  remove  the  injunction  of  secrecy,  but 
his  motion  was  defeated, —  Calhoun,  Lowndes,  Cheves,  and 
other  Southern  leaders  voting  against  it.  Finally,  after  one 
more  effort  to  open  the  doors  had  been  lost,  the  bill  declaring 
war  against  England  was  passed  by  79  votes  to  49.  On  June 
1 8  the  Senate  notified  the  House  that  it  had  passed  the  bill 
with  certain  amendments,  which  were  concurred  in  by  the 
House  on  the  same  day,  after  the  defeat  of  various  motions 
to  postpone,  and  the  completed  bill  was  then  at  once  signed 
by  Madison.  On  that  same  day,  upon  the  motion  of  Cal- 
houn,22 the  injunction  of  secrecy  as  to  the  message  and  pro- 
ceedings was  removed. 

Calhoun,  Clay,  and  some  others  had  been  in  favor  of  hold- 
ing the  discussion  on  the  war  message  with  open  doors;  but 
Grundy  and  others  opposed  this,  so  it  was  thought  advisable 
to  consult  with  the  Executive.  Calhoun,  Clay,  and  Grundy 

22  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  1811-12,  Part 
II,  pp.  1546-54-  /WA,  Supplemental  Journal,  pp.  1624-31,  1633,  1637,  1679, 
1682,  1683. 


130  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

called  accordingly  upon  Madison,  with  the  result  that  the  doors 
were  kept  closed.  Later,  when  the  vote  was  about  to  be  taken, 
Madison  sent  his  private  secretary  with  a  request  for  delay 
to  receive  a  communication  from  him.  Apparently,  this  mes- 
sage was  sent  direct  to  Calhoun,  and  he  replied  that  he  could 
not  take  the  responsibility  of  a  delay,  but  would  (if  author- 
ized) state  the  President's  wishes.  This  step  was  then  taken, 
and  in  consequence  the  question  was  postponed  until  the  in- 
tended communication  came  in,  which  turned  out  to  be  from 
the  British  Minister,  intended  to  prevent  the  declaration  and 
thus  save  his  credit  after  he  had  written  home  that  the  Re- 
publican party  could  not  be  "  kicked  into  a  war."  Here  the 
matter  ended,  no  further  delay  occurred,  and  the  war  was  de- 
clared as  already  narrated.23 

The  bold,  if  terribly  dangerous,  decision  was  thus  at  length 
made,  and  our  new-born  federation,  containing  within  its  lim- 
its less  than  eight  million  people,  was  at  war  with  a  nation 
the  most  fundamentally  powerful  on  the  face  of  earth, —  the 
nation  which  alone  had  been  able  to  stand  up  against  the 
colossal  Empire  of  Napoleon,  and  whose  ships  had  swept  the 
seas  of  all  enemies.  Upon  her  dominions,  it  was  said,  as 
had  been  already  said  of  other  vast  empires,  the  sun  never 
sets;  and,  so  wide-extended  were  they  that  the  far  broader, 
though  less  rhetorical,  statement  that  it  was  forever  exactly 
noon  within  her  possessions,  would  have  been  almost  literally 
true.  An  implacable  enemy  she  was,  puffed  up  with  the  arro- 
gance of  success,  and  despising  to  a  degree  those  petty  wasps, 
her  late  colonists. 

In  bringing  about  the  mighty  decision,  which  had  thus  at 
length  been  reached,  there  can  be  no  question  but  that  Calhoun 
'had  a  leading  hand.  He  seems  to  have  always  believed ^that 
the  disputes  would  unavoidaBIy~eri3Tir  warTanS  thFs~opinion 
naturally  led  him  to  more  and  more  importance  among  those 
[who  looked  upon  that  as  the  only  means  of  solving  our  diffi- 
culties, but  he  was  not  the  author  of  the  War  Report  which 
he  had  presented  on  June  3.  That  paper  had  been  prepared 

2S  Calhoun  gave  these  details  in  the  Senate  on  July  17,  1841,  "  Congres- 
sional Globe,"  Twenty- Seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  215.  See  also 
"Autobiography,"  p.  12. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  131 

by  Monroe  at  the  request  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Af- 
fairs,—  and  doubtless  of  Calhoun  himself, —  on  the  ground 
that  Monroe  was  more  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  facts. 
It  was  a  curious  chance  that  its  presentation  should  fall  to 
the  hands  of  Calhoun,  the  youngest  member  of  the  Commit- 
tee, owing  to  the  absence  of  the  chairman,  Peter  B.  Porter, 
and  it  has  been  truthfully  said  that  "  the  presentation  of  [it] 
immediately  gave  him  a  national  reputation."  24  For  some 
years  afterward  he  was  beyond  doubt  among  the  most  popu- 
lar men  in  the  country. 

There  is  one  other  speech  of  Calhoun's  at  this  First  Session 
of  Congress,  which  must  be  referred  to.  On  June  19,  1812, 
the  day  after  the  declaration  of  war,  Cheves  introduced  into 
the  House  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  a  bill  par- 
tially suspending  for  a  limited  time  the  several  acts  prohibit- 
ing importations  from  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies,  and  on 
the  23rd  Richardson  of  Massachusetts  moved  to  amend  by 
repealing  all  the  prohibitory  acts  entirely.25  Some  of  the  ma- 
jority were  very  restive  under  the  restrictive  system,  despite 
the  fact  that  it  was  undoubtedly  the  policy  of  the  Republican 

24  Benton,  in  "  Thirty  Years'  View,"  Vol.  I,  p.  680,  writes  that  Monroe 
drew  the   report  and  that  the  absence  of   Porter  and  the  hesitancy  of 
Grundy,  "the  second  on  the  committee,  threw  [it]  into  the  hands  of  Mr. 
Calhoun,  the  third  on  the  list,"  but  he  is  here  partly  in  error.     Calhoun 
was  the  second  member.     Mr.  Gaillard  Hunt  has  discovered  an  unpublished 
article  by  Gales  of  the  "  National  Intelligencer,"  which  shows  clearly  that 
the  War  Report  was  drawn  by  Monroe.     Gales  had  seen  the  report  in 
the  handwriting  of  Monroe's  confidential  clerk,  and  gives  other  evidence 
also.    Very  possibly,   Benton  was  the  "  living  statesman,"  at  whose  re- 
quest Gales  wrote  the  article  in  question  and  who  only  used  a  part  of 
it.     According  to  Gales,  some  six  months  after  Congress  met,  Clay  and 
other  members  had  called  on  Madison  and  told  him  Congress  was  ready 
to  declare  war,  if  he  would  recommend  it.    He  had  for  some  time  been 
ready,  and  his  War  Message  of  June  i   was  soon  sent  in.    This  inter- 
view of  Clay  and  others  is  doubtless  the  same  one  to  which  Calhoun  has 
been  shown  to  have  referred  in  the  Senate  many  years  later,  and  which 
was  made  in  order  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  debate  should  be 
held  with  open  doors.     It  was  very  innocent  but  came  in  time  to  be  per- 
verted into  the  oft-repeated  story  that  Clay  and  others  forced  Madison 
into  the  Declaration  by  the  threat  that  he  would  not  otherwise  be  nomi- 
nated for  a  second  term.     No  real  evidence  to  this  effect  has  been  pro- 
duced, and  there  is  plenty  to  the  contrary.     See  Mr.   Hunt's  article  in 
"American  Historical  Review,"  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  303-10;  and  his  "Life  of 
Madison,"  pp.  316-327. 

25  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  II,  1811-12, 
PP.  I5II,  1533. 


I32  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C  CALHOUN 

party  and  had  been  adhered  to  for  many  years  by  all  the 
fathers  in  that  faith.  Indeed,  according  to  the  "  Autobi- 
ography," 26  the  support  of  it  had  long  been  "  the  main  test 
of  party  fidelity,"  to  which  the  author  adds  that  "  party  spirit 
was  never  higher  than  at  the  time." 

These  facts  were  not  calculated  to  make  a  young  man  am- 
bitious of  a  career  come  out  in  open  opposition  to  a  policy 
that  had  thus  not  only  the  support  of  all  the  older  leaders  but 
was  also  advocated  by  the  existing  Executive.  The  "  Auto- 
biography "  speaks  in  the  highest  terms  of  the  boldness  and 
independence  of  the  young  Calhoun,  who  ventured,  "  when  he 
believed  that  duty  and  the  interest  of  the  country  required  it, 
to  place  himself  above  all  party  considerations,  and  to  expose 
manfully  the  defects  of  a  system  which  had  been  so  long 
cherished  and  defended  by  the  party  to  which  he  belonged." 
Possibly,  this  is  a  slightly  exaggerated  view,  for  Calhoun  was 
not  the  only  one  of  the  bounding  young  war-hawks  to  an- 
nounce his  disbelief  in  this  particular  part  of  the  creed  of  his 
party,  but  still  it  was  a  bold  and  independent  step  on  his  part. 
On  June  24  he  spoke  as  follows  upon  the  proposed  bill  for  a 
partial  suspension  and  Richardson's  motion  to  amend  by  mak- 
ing the  repeal  total : 

I  am  in  favor  of  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts ;  and  as  I  differ  from  many  of  my  friends  on 
the  subject,  I  feel  it  a  duty  to  present  the  reasons  which  will 
govern  me.  ...  It  now  remains  for  me  to  touch  another  and 
far  more  interesting  topic  of  argument,  and  which  I  confess 
has  the  principal  weight  in  the  formation  of  my  opinion  on  this 
subject.  The  restrictive  system,  as  a  means  of  resistance  and 
a  mode  of  obtaining  redress  for  our  wrongs,  has  never  been  a 
favorite  one  with  me.  I  wish  not  to  censure  the  motive  which 
dictated  it,  or  to  attribute  weakness  to  those  who  first  resorted 
to  it  for  a  restoration  of  our  rights.  Though  I  do  not  think  the 
embargo  a  wise  measure,  yet  I  am  far  from  thinking  it  a  pusil- 
lanimous one.  To  lock  up  the  whole  commerce  of  the  country ;  to 
say  to  the  most  trading  and  exporting  people  in  the  world,  you 
shall  not  trade,  you  shall  not  export ;  to  break  in  on  the  schemes  of 
almost  every  man  in  society  is  far  from  weakness,  very  far  from 

.    10. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  133 

pusillanimity.  Sir,  I  confess,  while  I  disapprove  that  more  than 
any  measure,  it  proves  the  strength  of  your  Government  and  the 
patriotism  of  the  people.  The  arm  of  despotism  under  similar 
circumstances  could  not  coerce  its  execution  more  effectually, 
than  the  zeal  and  patriotism  of  the  people.  But,  sir,  I  object  to 
the  restrictive  system ;  and  for  the  following  reasons ;  because  it 
does  not  suit  the  genius  of  our  people,  or  that  of  the  Govern- 
ment, or  the  geographical  character  of  our  country.  We  are  a 
people  essentially  active.  I  may  say  we  are  pre-eminently  so. 
Distance  and  difficulties  are  less  to  us  than  any  people  on  earth. 
Our  schemes  and  prospects  extend  everywhere  and  to  every- 
thing. No  passive  system  can  suit  such  a  people,  in  action  su- 
perior to  all  others ;  in  patience  and  endurance  inferior  to  many.27 
Nor  does  it  suit  the  genius  of  our  Government.  Our  Govern- 
ment is  founded  on  freedom  and  hates  coercion.  To  make  the 
coercive  system  effectual,  requires  the  most  arbitrary  laws.  .  .  . 
Besides,  there  are  other  and  strong  objections  to  the  system. 
It  renders  Government  odious.  People  are  not  in  the  habit  of 
looking  back  beyond  the  immediate  cause.  The  farmer  inquires 
why  he  cannot  get  more  for  his  produce,  and  he  is  told  that  it  is 
owing  to  the  embargo,  or  to  commercial  restrictions.  In  this 
he  sees  only  the  hand  of  his  own  Government.  He  does  not 
look  to  those  acts  of  violence  and  injustice,  which  this  system 
is  intended  to  counteract.  His  censures  fall  on  his  Government. 
...  In  war  it  is  different.  The  privation,  it  is  true,  may  be 
equal  or  greater;  but  the  public  mind,  under  the  strong  im- 
pulses of  that  state  of  things,  becomes  steeled  against  suffer- 
ings. The  difference  is  great  between  the  passive  and  active 
state  of  the  mind.  Tie  down  a  hero,  and  he  feels  the  puncture 
of  a  pin;  but  throw  him  into  battle,  and  he  is  scarcely  sensible 
of  vital  gashes.  So  in  war;  impelled  alternately  by  hope  and 
fear,  stimulated  with  revenge,  depressed  with  shame,  or  ele- 
vated with  victory,  the  people  have  become  invincible.  No  priva- 
tion can  shake  their  fortitude.  No  calamity  can  break  their 
spirit.  Even  where  equally  successful,  the  contrast  is  striking. 
War  and  restriction  may  leave  the  country  equally  exhausted; 
but  the  latter  not  only  leaves  you  poor,  but,  even  when  success- 
ful, dispirited,  divided,  discontented,  with  diminished  patriotism 
and  the  manners  of  a  considerable  portion  of  your  people  cor- 

27  In  quoting  this  speech,  apparently  from  another  source,  for  there  are 
numerous  small  variations,  the  "  Autobiography "  p.  10,  has  the  word 
"  none,"  in  place  of  "  many." 


i34  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

rupted.  Not  so  in  war.  In  that  state  the  common  danger  unites 
all  —  strengthens  the  bonds  of  society,  and  feeds  the  flame  of 
patriotism.  The  national  character  acquires  energy.  In  ex- 
change for  the  expenses  of  war,  you  obtain  military  and  naval 
skill,  and  a  more  perfect  organization  of  such  parts  of  your 
Government  as  is  [sic]  connected  with  the  science  of  national 
defence.  You  also  obtain  the  habit  of  freely  advancing  your 
purse  and  strength  in  the  common  cause.  Sir,  are  these  advan- 
tages to  be  considered  as  trifles  in  the  present  state  of  the  world  ? 
Can  they  be  measured  by  a  moneyed  valuation  ?  .  .  .  Sir,  I  would 
prefer  a  single  victory  over  the  enemy  by  sea  or  land  to  all  the 
good  we  shall  ever  derive  from  the  continuation  of  the  non-im- 
portation act.  I  know  not  that  it  would  produce  an  equal  pres- 
sure on  the  enemy ;  but  I  am  certain  of  what  is  of  greater  conse- 
quence, it  would  be  accompanied  with  more  salutary  effects  on 
ourselves.  The  memory  of  a  Saratoga  or  Eutaw  is  immortal. 
It  is  there  you  will  find  the  country's  boast  and  pride;  the  inex- 
haustible source  of  great  and  heroic  actions.28 

The  motion  to  amend,  so  as  to  make  the  repeal  complete, 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  58  Yeas  to  61  Nays,  Calhoun,  Cheves, 
and  Lowndes  voting  Yea;  but  the  Republican  members  much 
divided.  Another  motion,  to  expunge  from  the  bill  all  ex- 
ceptions to  the  suspension  of  non-importation,  "  so  as  to  make 
it  total  instead  of  partial,"  was  soon  made,  and  was  barely  lost 
by  59  to  60, —  one  member  from  North  Carolina  having 
changed  his  vote.  Then  an  indefinite  postponement  was  car- 
ried by  63  to  58;  Calhoun,  Cheves,  and  Lowndes  in  the  nega- 
tive. 

While  we  are  upon  this  general  subject,  it  will  be  best  to 
end  what  needs  to  be  said  of  Calhoun's  course  in  regard  to 
it.  The  administration  still  adhered  to  the  restrictive  sys- 
tem, even  long  after  the  war  began.  On  July  20,  1813,  during 
the  first  session  of  the  Thirteenth  Congress,  Madison  sent  in 
a  secret  message,  recommending  an  embargo,  and  such  a  meas- 
ure passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  80  to  50,  but  failed  in  the 
Senate.29  Calhoun  and  several  other  leaders  voted  against 

28  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  Part  II,  1811-12, 
PP.  1535,  1539-44- 

29  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1813-14,  Vol. 
I,  PP-  499,  5oo,  503,  504. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  135 

it  in  the  house.  Very  early  in  the  next  session,  on  December 
9,  1813,  Madison  again  sent  in  a  secret  message,  with  the 
recommendation  that  "  an  effectual  embargo  on  exports  be 
immediately  enacted."  The  ground  alleged  was  that  "  sup- 
plies of  most  essential  kinds  "  were  finding  their  way  to  Brit- 
ish ports  and  even  to  British  armies  in  our  immediate  neigh- 
borhood. Calhoun  had,  as  has  been  said,  voted  against  the 
proposed  embargo  at  the  preceding  session;  and  a  speech  be- 
fore that  date  has  just  been  quoted  in  which  he  openly  ex- 
pressed his  disbelief  in  the  whole  restrictive  policy,  but  on 
this  occasion  his  name  appears  among  those  in  favor  of  the 
measure.  His  colleagues,  Cheves  and  Lowndes,  voted  against 
it;  but  it  passed  both  Houses  and  became  a  law  on  December 


Of  course  it  is  clear  that  Calhoun's  course  upon  this  subject 
was  not  consistent;  but  public  men  often  find  consistency  hard 
to  attain,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  his 
statement31  that  "at  the  earnest  entreaties  of  friends,  and  to 
prevent  division  in  the  party  when  their  union  was  so  neces- 
sary to  the  success  of  the  war,  [he]  gave  it  a  reluctant  vote." 
Ingersoll,  too,  who  sat  in  this  same  Congress,  seems  to  have 
known  that,  though  Calhoun  voted  for  the  measure,  he  dis- 
approved of  it.  He  had  apparently  declined  to  advance  the 
bill  in  any  way,  and  Grundy  acted  as  leader.32 

This  was  the  last  of  the  much-discussed  restrictive  meas- 
ures, and  it  was  a  short-lived  statute.  Within  less  than  four 
months  and  at  the  same  session  of  Congress,  on  March  31, 
1814,  Madison  recommended  the  repeal  of  the  embargo  and 
the  practical  abandonment  of  the  whole  restrictive  system. 
The  message  was  very  short,  and  it  will  be  best  to  give  it  at 
length.  It  was  couched  in  the  following  words: 

Taking  into  view  the  mutual  interests  which  the  United  States 
and  the  foreign  nations  in  amity  with  them  have  in  a  liberal  com- 
mercial intercourse,  and  the  extensive  changes  favorable  thereto 
which  have  recently  taken  place:  taking  into  view,  also,  the  im- 

30  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,   Second  Session,   1813-14, 
Part  II,  pp.  2031,  2032,  2053. 
81 "  Autobiography,"  pp.  13,  14. 
32  Ingersoll's  "Second  War"  (1814),  Vol.  II,  p.  51. 


136  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

portant  advantages  which  may  otherwise  result  from  adapting 
the  state  of  our  commercial  laws  to  the  circumstances  now  exist- 
ing; 

I  recommend  to  the  consideration  of  Congress  the  expediency 
of  authorizing,  after  a  certain  day,  exportations,  specie  excepted, 
from  the  United  States,  in  vessels  of  the  United  States,  and  in 
vessels  owned  and  navigated  by  the  subjects  of  Powers  at  peace 
with  them;  and  a  repeal  of  so  much  of  our  laws  as  prohibit  the 
importation  of  articles  not  the  property  of  enemies,  but  produced 
or  manufactured  only  within  their  dominions. 

I  recommend,  also,  as  a  more  effectual  safeguard  and  encour- 
agement to  our  growing  manufactures,  that  the  additional  duties 
on  imports  which  are  to  expire  at  the  end  of  one  year  after  a 
peace  with  Great  Britain,  be  prolonged  to  the  end  of  two  years 
after  that  event;  and  that,  in  favor  of  our  moneyed  institutions, 
the  exportation  of  specie  be  prohibited  throughout  the  same 
period.83 

The  Message  was  referred  in  the  House  to  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations,  and  on  April  4  Calhoun  brought  in  a 
bill  to  repeal  the  law  of  December  17,  1813,  the  non-inter- 
course law  and  for  other  purposes.  In  his  report,34  he  states 
very  clearly  the  changed  circumstances  that  rendered  the  re- 
peal advisable.  "  Previous  to  the  late  changes  in  Europe,'' 
he  wrote,  "the  bearing  of  our  restrictive  measures  was  for 
the  most  part  confined  to  our  enemies.  ...  At  present,  a 
prospect  exists  of  an  extended  intercourse  with  [the  friendly 
Powers]  highly  important  to  both  parties.  .  .  .  Denmark,  all 
Germany,  and  Holland,  heretofore  under  the  double  restraint 
of  internal  regulation  and  external  blockades  and  depreda- 
tions from  a  commerce  with  the  United  States,  appear  by  late 
events  to  be  liberated  therefrom.  Like  changes  .  .  .  appear 
to  be  taking  place  in  Italy,  and  the  most  extreme  parts  of  the 
Mediterranean." 

During  the  debate,  he  spoke  several  times  and  insisted  that 
the  war  "  was,  as  it  had  been  emphatically  and  correctly  stated, 
a  war  for  Free  Trade  and  Sailors'  Rights."  He  again  ex- 
pressed  openly  his  opposition  to  the _whole  system  of  restric- 


33  AnnalS^oFTongress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,   1813-14, 
Vol.  I,  p.  694. 
84  Ibid.,  pp.  1946,  1047. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  137 

tion.  "  Gentlemen  might  say,"  such  were  his  words,  "  that, 
in  this  view  of  the  restrictive  system,  it  ought  to  have  ter- 
minated at  the  commencement  of  the  war.  To  be  candid, 
that  was  his  opinion  ...  he  thought  it  ought  to  have  ter- 
minated in  war  earlier  than  it  did." 

The  discussion  became  a  good  deal  involved  with  the  tariff 
question,  but  into  this  we  must  not  enter  now.  Suffice  it  to 
say  that,  after  various  unsuccessful  motions  to  lessen  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  repeal,  the  measure  was  passed  by  a  vote  of 
115  to  37,  much  in  the  form  in  which  Calhoun  had  introduced 
it.  Some  days  later,  certain  Senate  amendments  of  impor- 
tance were  on  his  motion  concurred  in  by  68  to  52,  and  then 
with  the  President's  signature  the  measure  became  a  law.35 

Thus,  a  law  enacted  on  Madison's  recommendation  in  De- 
cember, 1813,  was  repealed  upon  his  recommendation  in 
April,  1814.  The  burden  of  defending  this  apparently  in- 
consistent conduct  fell  chiefly  on  Calhoun  as  administration 
leader  on  the  floor,  and  hejiad  himself  openly  expressed  dis- 
approvaljDf  the  whole  restrictive  system  and  yet  had  voted 
for  the  measure  of  December,  1813.  It  was_jn__his^ speech 
upon  this  subject  that  he  drew  the  distinction  between  the 
state  of  public  affairs  in  Europe  in  1807,  at  the  inception  of 
our  restrictive  system,  and  that  existing  in  i8i4.38  At  the 
former  date,  he  said,  there  were  no  neutrals,  while  in  1814  a 
large  portion  of  the  Continent  had  at  length  come  to  be  so, 
and  its  ports  were  open.  The  difference  to  us,  consequent 
upon  the  then  recent  changes  in  Europe,  were  also  set  forth 
plainly  enough  by  him  in  the  already  quoted  report  accom- 
panying the  bill  of  repeal. 

His  conduct  of  the  matter  was  such  that  it  is  very  likely 
many  of  his  hearers  did  not  fully  realize  what  a  volte- face 
the  administration  had  made,  and  it  certainly  helped  enor- 
mously to  let  them  gracefully  out  of  the  difficulty.  So  much 
was  this  the  case  that  the  biographer  of  Webster  has  written : 

There  are  few  specimens  of  parliamentary  tact,  on  the  records 

85  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,   Second  Session,   1813-14, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  1962,  1963,  1983,  1984,  I99i,  I992»  2001,  2002,  2014. 
36  See  the  speech  quoted  in  part,  ante,  p.  117. 


138  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

of  any  deliberative  assembly,  more  ingenious  than  this  speech  of 
Mr.  Calhoun  in  favor  of  repealing  the  Embargo  of  December, 
1813.  But  he  forgot,  perhaps  he  wished  to  forget,  that  it  was 
the  Embargo  of  December,  1813,  which  he  was  about  to  repeal. 
He  forgot  that  the  very  assertion  of  the  President,  when  he 
recommended  this  as  a  war  measure,  was,  that  there  were  neutral 
nations,  under  whose  flag  and  through  whose  ports  an  indirect 
commerce  between  Great  Britain  and  ourselves  was  then  allowed 
to  be  going  on,  which  weakened  us  and  strengthened  her  as 
belligerents,  and  which  must  therefore  be  suppressed,  at  whatso- 
ever expense  to  those  neutral  nations.  All  that  Mr.  Calhoun 
said,  respecting  the  importance  of  conciliating  and  helping  the 
nations  that  were  neutrals,  in  April,  1814,  when  he  proposed  the 
repeal,  was  true  and  sound;  but  it  was  just  as  true  and  sound  in 
December,  1813,  when  this  Embargo  was  laid.  Moreover,  Napo- 
leon had  been  driven  out  of  Russia  in  the  winter  of  1812-13 ;  and 
when  we  laid  this  particular  Embargo  of  December,  1813,  put- 
ting an  end  to  all  lawful  commerce  with  all  nations,  a  large  part 
of  Northern  Europe  was  preparing  to  combine  against  him,  and 
their  territories  could  no  longer  be  used  by  him  as  the  sphere  of 
his  own  restrictive  policy.37 

The  inconsistency  of  the  two  measures  of  enactment  and 
repeal  certainly  seeriis  on  the  surface  most  striking,  but  it  is 
not  easy  to-day  to  judge  fairly  of  events  occurring  so  long 
ago,  and  I  think  examination  will  lessen  our  wonder.  News 
then  travelled  slowly,  and  not  only  does  a  new  alignment  of 
nations  always  take  long  to  develop  but  the  results  thereof 
must,  even  then,  lie  still  hidden  for  months  or  years  in  the 
womb  of  time.  After  Napoleon's  Russian  disaster  it  is  quite 
true  that  several  of  the  ports  of  Europe,  in  the  North  espe- 
cially, were  soon  opened  to  British  trade,  so  that  our  em- 
bargo could  have  had  no  material  effect  on  England;  but  the 
permanence  of  this  condition  of  affairs  was  very  uncertain. 
Napoleon's  career  had  been  so  dazzling  that  it  was  quite  nat- 
ural to  doubt  what  would  be  the  final  result.  Even  after  the 
formation  of  a  new  coalition  between  Prussia  and  Russia,  in. 
February  and  March  of  1813, —  to  which  Austria  did  not  ac- 
cede until  August, —  the  French  Emperor  had  at  first  some 

"Curtis's  "Webster,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  126,  127. 


WAR  WITH  ENGLAND  139 


astonishing  successes;  and  it  was  not  until  October  iQth  that 
he  met  his  first  great  defeat  at  Leipsic. 

The  news  of  this  crushing  blow  did  not  reach  America 
until  the  3Oth  of  December,  i8i3,38  two  weeks  after  this  last 
embargo  had  become  a  law,  and  three  weeks  after  Madison 
had  recommended  it.  Nor  should  we  forget  that  a  leading 
reason  for  advising  the  measure  was  that  supplies  from  Amer- 
ica were  then  finding  their  way  to  the  British  armies  operat- 
ing against  us.  This  trade  was,  moreover,  entirely  enjoyed 
by  disaffected  New  England,  and  it  is  doubtless  true  that  the 
desire  to  stop  this  exchange,  which  was  so  profitable  to  the 
bitter  opponents  of  the  war,  was  in  part  the  guiding  motive 
of  Madison  and  the  Republicans. 

The  embargo  of  1813  was  beyond  doubt  ill-timed  and,  had 
it  been  delayed  two  or  three  weeks,  would  never  have  been 
recommended  or  passed.  After  the  arrival  of  news  of  the 
battle  of  Leipsic,  nearly  every  vessel  coming  to  our  shores 
brought  reports  of  French  reverses,39  so  that  almost  all  of  Eu- 
rope was  soon  open  to  British  trade  and  our  restrictive  meas- 
ures palpably  senseless  for  their  main  purpose;  and  in  April, 
1814,  at  the  time  of  the  final  abandonment  of  our  long-  fol- 
lowed policy,  Napoleon  was  actually  signing  his  abdication. 

The  restrictive  system  thus  at  length  came  to  an  end.  It 
must  be  admitted  to  have  accomplished  little,  —  whatever  any 
of  us  may  think  the  might-have-been  as  to  it.  The  result  pos- 
sibly justified  Webster's  sarcasm  uttered  early  in  the  debate 
as  to  his  happiness  "  to  be  present  at  the  office  now  to  be  per- 
formed, and  to  act  a  part  in  the  funeral  ceremonies  of  what 
has  usually  been  called  the  restrictive  system."  The  opposi- 
tion have  always  an  easy  time  and  can  let  their  tongues  drip 
most  bitter  irony  and  invective,  but  are  in  the  main  restricted 
to  such  rather  unavailing  methods.40 

88McMaster's  "United  States,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  223-229. 

39  McMaster's  "  United  States,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  223-29. 

40  For  the  proceedings  and  debates  as  to  this  final  repeal  see  Annals  of 
Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  1813-14,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1961-66,  1983,  1984, 
1986,  1987,  1989,  1991,  1992,  2001,  2002,  2014. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

ACTIVITIES  IN   CONGRESS 

Second  Session  of  Twelfth  Congress  —  The  Thirteenth 
Congress  —  The  Loan  Bill  —  Bank  of  the  United  States  Pro- 
posed —  Death  of  Daughter. 

THE  Second  Session  of  the  Twelfth  Congress  met  on  No- 
vember 2,  1812,  and  Calhoun  was  present  on  the  opening  day. 
He  had  presumably  been  at  home  during  the  interval  between  • 
the  adjournment  of  the  prior  session  on  July  6,  1812,  and 
the  meeting  of  the  present  one  in  November.  It  was  the  short 
session,  the  Congress  expiring  by  limitation  on  the  4th  of 
March,  1813;  and  not  much  occurred  of  interest  to  us  here. 
At  the  very  beginning,  an  embarrassing  question  came  up  for 
the  decision  of  the  Speaker.  South  Carolina's  representation 
included  Langdon  Cheves,  William  Lowndes,  Gen.  David 
R.  Williams  and  Calhoun,  the  two  first  men  of  tried  ability 
and  both,  as  well  as  Williams,  at  the  head  of  important  com- 
mittees, while  Calhoun,  who  had  made  a  decided  mark  at  the 
first  session,  was  yet  the  youngest  of  the  four  named,  both 
in  years  and  in  length  of  service.  At  the  prior  session  he 
had  succeeded  to  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  For- 
eign Relations  upon  the  retirement  of  Porter,  but  there  was 
of  course  difficulty  in  placing  four  members  from  a  small 
State  at  the  head  of  important  committees. 

Calhoun  at  once  cut  this  Gordian  knot  and,  according  to 
the  "  Autobiography,"  l  with  his  characteristic  disinterested- 
ness, cheerfully  assented  to  be  placed  second  on  that  [com- 
mittee] at  the  head  of  which  he  had  served  with  so  much 

1  Pp.  12,  13.  Cralle  ("Advertisement"  to  Vol.  V.  of  Calhoun's 
"Works")  tells  this  story  somewhat  differently.  According  to  him,  it 
was  Porter,  at  the  prior  session,  who  gave  up  the  chairmanship  in  Cal- 
houn's favor ;  but  Calhoun's  own  version  is  of  course  the  true  one.  At 
the  first  session  Calhoun  had  no  record  behind  him  and,  moreover,  Porter 
continued  to  act  as  chairman  while  he  remained  in  the  House. 

140 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  141 

distinction  at  the  preceding  session.  Mr.  Smilie, —  an  old 
and  highly  respectable  member  from  Pennsylvania, —  was 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  committee.  At  the  first  meeting  the 
chairman,  without  previously  intimating  his  intention,  moved 
that  Mr.  Calhoun  should  be  elected  chairman.  He  objected, 
and  insisted  that  Mr.  Smilie  should  act  as  chairman,  and  de- 
clared his  perfect  willingness  to  serve  under  him;  but  he  was, 
notwithstanding,  unanimously  elected,  and  the  strongest  proof 
that  could  be  given  of  the  highly  satisfactory  manner  in  which 
he  had  previously  discharged  his  duty  was  thus  afforded.  In 
this  connection,  and  as  illustrative  of  the  same  disinterested 
character,  when  the  speaker's  chair  became  vacant  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  Mr.  Clay  as  one  of  the  commissioners  to  nego- 
tiate for  peace,  Mr.  Calhoun  was  solicited  by  many  of  the 
most  influential  members  of  the  party  to  become  a  candidate 
for  it ;  "  but  he  peremptorily  refused  to  oppose  his  distin- 
guished colleague,  Mr.  Cheves,  who  was  elected/' 

Early  in  the  session  a  question  arose  of  great  importance 
to  the  persons  concerned,  and  in  the  solution  of  which  in  a 
way  contrary  to  the  purposes  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
Gallatin  Calhoun  played  a  leading  part.  At  the  time  of  the 
declaration  of  war  there  was  a  large  amount  of  American 
capital  in  England, —  the  proceeds  of  exports  from  this  coun- 
try,—  which  could  not,  under  the  terms  of  the  still  unrepealed 
Non-Importation  Act,  be  sent  home  without  becoming  subject 
to  forfeiture.  The  owners  were  far  from  home,  and  when 
the  British  Orders  in  Council  were  at  length  revoked  after 
our  declaration  of  war,  they  seem  to  have  assumed  that  the 
Non-Importation  Act  would  at  once  be  repealed,  so  large  num- 
bers of  ships  were  loaded  and  despatched  to  America.  Upon 
arrival,  however,  they  were  all  compelled  to  enter  bond  to 
cover  the  forfeiture  incurred  by  the  violation  of  the  Non-Im- 
portation Act;  and,  when  they  petitioned  for  remission,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  would  not  consent,  unless  some 
share  of  the  very  large  profits  they  had  made  on  goods  then 
almost  unknown  in  America  should  enure  to  the  benefit  of  the 
Government. 

The  subject  was  referred  to  Congress  by  the  President  in 


i42  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

his  message  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  and  he  seemed  to 
incline  towards  extracting  some  profit  for  the  government  out 
of  the  merchants'  predicament.  The  question  went  next  to 
the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  and  Cheves  reported 
against  any  legislation  and  in  favor  of  leaving  the  entire  mat: 
ter  to  the  usual  discretion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
It  was  evidently  well  known  what  this  meant,  and  Cheves  soon 
said  that  personally  he  disapproved  of  the  report  and  its 
recommendation  and  only  presented  them  in  pursuance  of  the 
directions  of  his  committee.  Calhoun  and  Lowndes  also  op- 
posed strongly  the  policy  recommended, —  despite  the  fact  that 
the  question  is  said  to  have  assumed  much  of  a  party  char- 
acter. 

A  very  large  sum  was  involved,  and  here  was  doubtless  the 
bait  to  a  government  almost  bankrupt,  as  well  as  the  pinch 
to  the  individuals  in  trouble.  Calhoun  told  the  House  in  his 
speech  that  "  $20,000,000  await  your  decision,  a  sum  equal 
to  nearly  half  the  annual  export  of  the  country."  After  much 
discussion,  a  bill  passed  the  House  and  became  a  law,  much 
in  the  line  which  he,  with  his  more  liberal  views,  had  advo- 
cated. It  directed  the  remission  of  the  fines  in  all  cases  free 
from  any  fraud  or  effort  at  imposition,  and  was  beyond  ques- 
tion a  very  great  triumph  for  its  advocates  and  a  striking  in- 
stance of  their  power  and  independence.2 

Calhoun  doubtless  went  South  again  so  as  to  pass  at  home 
the  interval  between  the  adjournment  sine  die  of  the  Twelfth 
Congress  on  March  4,  1813,  and  the  first  meeting  of  the  Thir- 
teenth. The  latter  was  appointed,  by  the  Act  of  February 
27,  1813,  to  meet  on  May  24th  of  that  year.  He  had  already 
been  elected  a  member  of  the  Thirteenth  Congress  in  the 
autumn  of  1812,  but  the  district  from  which  he  was  sent  was 
quite  different  from  that  which  he  had  represented  in  the 
Twelfth  Congress,  owing  to  the  fact  that,  under  the  appor- 
tionment following  upon  the  census  of  1810,  nine  members 
were  assigned  to  South  Carolina  instead  of  eight,  to  which 
she  had  formerly  been  entitled.  The  new  district  was  made 

2  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1812-13,  pp.  15, 
198,  199.  216,  315-21,  1334-35-  "Autobiography,"  p.  13. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  143 

up  of  Edgefield  and  Abbeville,  of  which  only  the  latter  had 
been  included  in  his  former  district.  It  seems  that  William 
Butler,  who  had  been  elected  to  Congress  from  1800  to  1812 
from  the  old  district,  of  which  Edgefield  was  a  part,  now  in 
turn  withdrew  in  Calhoun's  favor.  He  is  said  to  have  re- 
marked to  Calhoun,  "  You  can  meet  Randolph  in  debate,  I 
cannot."  3 

That  he  was  by  this  time  a  man  of  mark  throughout  the 
country  is  very  clear,  and  the  rapidity  with  which  he  had  at- 
tained distinction  so  great  is  rarely  to  be  found  equalled.  His 
first  session  had  been  crowded  with  events  of  vast  importance 
to  the  country,  in  all  of  which  he  had  taken  a  leading  part,  as 
well  as  in  the  details  of  getting  the  country  ready  for  the  ordeal 
of  war  and  in  the  game  of  fence  and  spar  for  position  be- 
tween the  two  parties.  That  he  had  shown  great  tact,  end- 
less persistence,  and  a  high  order  of  broad  patriotism  dur- 
ing the  whole  of  the  time  is  clear  enough  from  the  records; 
and  the  same  thing  is  also  established  by  the  fact  that  a  man 
so  young  in  years  and  so  very  young  in  experience  had  been  in 
a  position  that  often  made  him  the  leader  for  the  adminis- 
tration upon  the  floor  of  the  House.  All  this  had,  moreover, 
been  the  case  also  during  the  second  session,  though  it  was 
short  and  not  so  many  matters  of  great  importance  came  be- 
fore it. 

At  home  Calhoun  was  probably  engaged  in  the  routine  mat- 
ters of  a  plantation  and  of  his  family,  but  the  relaxation  must 
have  been  welcome.  A  far  more  trying  service  than  that 
which  he  had  experienced  lay  ahead  of  him  in  the  near  fu- 
ture. The  Twelfth  Congress  had  been  chiefly  occupied  in 
declaring  war  in  the  exuberant  hope  of  an  early  triumph  and 
spurred  on  by  a  sense  of  the  gross  wrongs  long  done  us.  But 
the  Thirteenth  Congress  had  quite  another  task.  Stern  real- 
ity then  confronted  members,  and  the  glitter  of  youthful  hope 
had  been  sobered  by  lamentable  disasters  such  as  justified  to 
no  little  extent  the  opponents  of  the  war  in  referring  to  our 
efforts  in  the  field  as  "  two  drivelling  campaigns.'*  The  op- 
position, too,  was  strengthened  by  the  arrival  of  Webster, 

f "  Autobiography,"  p.  23.  "Memoirs  of  Gen.  Wm.  Butler,"  by  T.  P. 
$lider,  Atlanta,  1885  (pamphlet  in  Charleston  Library  Society),  p.  27. 


i44  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

who  now  began  his  long  career  in  the  federal  service  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House  from  New  Hampshire. 

New  policies,  moreover,  came  up  for  discussion,  some  of 
them  destined  for  many  years  to  hold  an  important  place  in 
the  federal  councils.  The  war  and  the  preceding  years  of 
non-intercourse  had  led  to  quite  a  growth  of  manufactures, 
and  these,  as  soon  as  the  indirect  protection  of  the  war  was 
removed,  began  to  clamor  for  the  passage  of  laws  to  exclude 
their  foreign  competitors  from  our  markets  and  thus  prevent 
the  ruin  of  the  home-plants.  The  currency  and  the  whole 
financial  system  of  the  country,  too,  were  in  such  a  state  of 
chaos  as  soon  led  to  efforts  to  establish  that  Second  Bank, 
which  was  destined  to  live  through  a  chequered  and  tragic 
career.  It  will  be  found  that  in  these  questions,  as  in  all 
others,  Calhoun  took  a  leading  hand. 

He  was  present  at  the  opening  of  the  session,  and  was  ap- 
pointed Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations. 
The  other  members  were  Grundy,  Desha,  Jackson  of  Virginia, 
Ingersoll,  Fisk  of  New  York,  and  Webster. 

Early  in  the  session  he  had  occasion  to  defend  the  admin- 
istration from  an  attack  by  Webster.  This  new  and  brilliant 
member,  then  representing  a  district  of  New  Hampshire,  in- 
troduced resolutions  on  June  10,  calling  upon  the  Executive 
for  information  "  when,  by  whom  and  in  what  manner  "  in- 
telligence of  the  repeal  of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had 
first  been  communicated  to  our  Government.  His  idea  was 
that  the  administration  had  either  been  deceived  by  the  French 
ministry  or  that  at  the  very  time  when  war  was  declared  they 
were  already  in  possession  of  the  repealing  decree  (dated 
April  28,  1811),  and  had  suppressed  it.  The  gravamen  of 
the  charge  grew  out  of  the  facts  that  the  English  Orders  in 
Council  had  been  alleged  as  one  of  the  causes  of  the  war  and 
that  the  English  had  said  that  they  would  repeal  those  orders 
when  the  French  decrees  were  repealed.  It  is  evident  that 
Webster  thought  that  he  had  the  Government  in  a  tight  place 
in  this  matter,  and  for  a  time  he  carried  the  House  with  him. 
A  general  request  for  information  upon  the  same  point  had 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  H5 

been  passed  at  the  prior  session,  but  Webster  thought  the  an- 
swer insufficient. 

Webster  insisted  that  "the  revocation  of  the  Orders  in 
Council  of  Great  Britain  was  the  main  point  on  which  the 
war  turned,"  and  argued  that  therefore  the  date  at  which  our 
Government  had  heard  officially  of  the  repeal  was  vital,  and 
he  spoke  of  the  "  contradictory  evidence  "  on  this  head.  An- 
other member  (Sheffey)  said  that,  if  the  President  had  knowl- 
edge of  the  repeal  before  the  war,  his  conduct  "  deserves  not 
only  the  scrutiny  but  the  reprehension  of  the  nation,  for  then 
we  had  been  plunged  into  the  war  needlessly.  If  the  knowl- 
edge had  been  used  properly, "  he  said,  "  the  Orders  in  Coun- 
cil, the  great  cause  of  the  war,  would  have  been  done  away," 
—  i.  e.  the  virtuous  English  would  at  once  have  repealed  their 
Orders,  if  only  they  had  been  informed  by  Madison  that  the 
wicked  French  Decrees  had  been  rescinded. 

Calhoun  took  up  the  defence  and  objected  strongly  to  the 
unusual  and  prying  form  in  which  the  resolutions  were  cast. 
He  moved  to  strike  out  the  words  "  when,  by  whom  and  in 
what  manner,"  and  reminded  members  that  the  Prince  Regent 
of  Great  Britain  had  distinctly  said  in  August,  1812,  that 
they  would  not  repeal  their  Orders,  even  if  the  French  did 
repeal  the  Berlin  and  Milan  Decrees.  The  debate  was  warm 
for  a  few  days,  and  it  seems  as  if  the  administration  leaders 
at  first  feared  the  matter,  but  on  June  21  Calhoun  withdrew 
his  amendment,  on  the  ground  of  being  anxious  to  get  to  the 
discussion  of  the  vital  question  of  ways  and  means.  Web- 
ster's view  was  expressed  in  a  letter  in  which  he  wrote :  "  We 
had  a  warm  time  of  it  for  four  days,  and  then  the  other  side 
declined  further  discussion."  Possibly  Calhoun's  withdrawal 
of  his  motion  was  owing  to  his  recognition  of  the  evident 
fact  that  the  House  was  in  favor  of  the  resolutions;  but  it 
seems  more  likely  that  by  that  time  information  from  the 
Executive  had  shown  that  their  skirts  were  entirely  clear  of 
duplicity  in  the  matter  and  that  there  was  not  the  slightest 
reason  to  fear  the  inquiry.  The  resolutions  were  passed  on 
that  same  day  (June  21)  by  votes  of  approximately  137  to 


i46  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

26.     Several  administration  leaders,  and  among  them  Cal- 
houn,  Cheves  and  Lowndes,  voted  in  the  affirmative.4 

On  July  12,  an  answer5  came  in  through  the  Secretary  of 
State,  Monroe,  and  showed  that  the  first  knowledge  of  the 
repeal  had  reached  our  Government  from  Barlow,  Minister 
to  France,  on  July  13,  1812, —  nearly  a  month  after  the  dec- 
laration of  war,  and  more  than  a  year  and  two  months  after 
the  date  of  the  repeal  (April  28,  1811).  Barlow  had  first 
heard  of  it  in  an  informal  conversation  with  the  Duke  of 
Bassano  between  the  ist  and  loth  of  May,  1812,  and  on  the 
latter  date  it  was  officially  communicated  to  him  at  his  re- 
quest. He  had  at  once  sent  the  very  important  information 
to  our  Minister  in  England,  whence  it  had  been  dispatched  to 
Washington  by  the  Wasp.  It  was  also  at  the  same  time  com- 
municated by  our  Minister  to  the  British  cabinet,  and  the  re- 
peal of  the  British  Orders  urged,  in  accordance  with  former 
intimations  of  the  English  Cabinet,  but  no  encouragement  had 
been  given  to  expect  a  repeal.  No  other  communication  of 
the  decree,  so  Monroe  added,  had  ever  been  made  to  this 
Government,  nor  explanation  given  of  the  long  failure  to  com- 
municate it. 

It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  administration  escaped  with 
flying  colors  the  pitfall  that  Webster  had  dug  for  it,  and  all 
the  pother  of  the  matter  is  probably  to  be  attributed  to  the 
duplicity  of  the  French  Emperor  and  his  agents,  and  their 
endeavor  to  keep  a  door  both  open  ahd  shut.  To  sign 6  a 
repeal  on  April  28,  1811,  which  was  to  take  effect  as  of  No- 
vember ist  last  (1810), —  and  then  to  \][ceep  it  hidden  away 
in  a  dossier  until  May  of  1812,  so  that  bare  hints  and  rumors 
of  it  flitted  about  the  world  to  darken  and  deceive, — 7  is  a 

*  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1813-14,  Vol. 
I,  pp.  149-52,  169  et  seq., — 170,  172,  174-78,  302,  303.  Curtis's  "  Web- 
ster," Vol.  I,  pp.  109-14. 

6  Ibid.,  433:  State  Papers  and  Public  Documents  of  the  United  States, 
Third  Edition  (1819),  1812-15,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  233  et  seq. 

6  Or,  possibly  to  sign  it  in  May,   1812,  and  ante-date  it  as  of  April, 
1811, —  as  Benton  thinks  was  done.     "Abridgement  of  Debates  of  Con- 
gress," Vol.  V,  p.  19. 

7  Rumors  of  the  repeal  had  been  long  prevalent,  and  had  been  referred 
to  in   Madison's   Message  at  the  opening  of   the   First   Session  of  the 
Twelfth  Congress,  on  November  5,  1811.    These  rumors  had  been  vainly 
used  with  the  British  cabinet  to  secure  a  repeal  of  the  Orders  in  Council. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  147 

method  that  must  often  lead  to  grave  misunderstanding.  In 
this  instance,  too,  flat  lying  seems  to  have  been  indulged  in, 
for  the  French  Secretary  stated  that  he  had  long  before  told 
Barlow's  predecessor  of  the  repeal,  as  well  as  sent  it  to  Amer- 
ica to  be  communicated  to  our  Government.  No  record  of 
any  such  information,  however,  was  to  be  found  in  our  ar- 
chives, either  in  Paris  or  Washington,  and  it  may  be  safely 
said  that  the  great  news  had  never  been  made  known  to  us 
or  our  agents.  It  was  far  too  important,  and  the  repeal  was 
too  anxiously  desired  by  our  Government  to  have  been  allowed 
to  drop  or  disappear,  but  it  was  probably  this  statement  of 
the  French  Secretary,  appearing  in  our  official  correspondence, 
that  misled  Webster  and  made  him  cocksure  for  a  time  that 
he  had  Madison  on  the  hip. 

The  English  did  finally  repeal  their  Orders  in  Council  on 
June  23,  1812, —  more  than  a  month  after  they  had  been  au- 
thoritatively informed  by  us  of  the  French  decree  of  April 
28,  1811,  and  they  then  alleged  the  recall  of  the  French  de- 
crees as  the  cause  of  their  action,  but  the  refusal  to  repeal 
the  Orders,  when  urged  by  our  Minister  on  that  very  ground 
in  May,  and  several  utterances  by  the  highest  English  authori- 
ties as  well  as  their  later  suggestion  to  us  of  a  repeal  under 
conditions  speak  far  louder,  and  justify  the  statement  in  Mon- 
roe's report  that  the  real  cause  must  have  been  something  else. 

Monroe's  reply  was  at  once  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  and  the  next  day  (July  13)  Calhoun  re- 
ported8 shortly  from  it  with  a  resolution  that  "the  conduct 
of  the  Executive  .  .  .  meets  with  the  approbation  of  this 
House."  But  the  House  declined  to  consider  the  matter,  and 

8  Had  the  language  of  this  report  been  remembered  in  1834  by  Jack- 
son's friends,  they  would  have  used  it  at  the  time  of  the  resolution  of 
censure  of  March  26,  1834,  upon  his  conduct  in  regard  to  the  removal  of 
the  deposits.  Calhoun's  report  of  1813  read  that  the  committee  were 
"aware  that  on  ordinary  occasions  it  is  not  proper  for  this  House  to  ex- 
press sentiments  of  approbation  or  censure  on  the  conduct  of  the  Presi- 
dent, but  submit  with  deference  that,  as  through  this  body  he  is  per- 
sonally responsible  to  the  people  for  the  faithful  discharge  of  his  duties, 
there  are  cases  in  which  it  is  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  this 
House  to  express  its  opinion.  Such,  in  the  judgment  of  your  committee, 
is  the  present.  The  language  of  the  resolutions,  and  the  motives  avowed 
by  their  supporters,  leave  no  alternative.  To  be  silent  would  be  to  con- 
demn." 


i48  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

went  instead  to  the  vital  question  of  Ways  and  Means,  and 
again  later  they  declined  to  take  it  up,  on  Calhoun's  own  mo- 
tion to  do  so.  At  the  next  session,  Webster  returned  once 
more  to  the  charge,  largely  on  the  ground  that  Monroe's  re- 
ply was  an  argument  and  not  a  report.  Calhoun  expressed 
himself  as  quite  willing  to  fix  an  early  date  to  consider  the 
subject,  provided  there  was  no  interference  with  the  "  great 
business  of  the  session,"  but  the  matter  was  never  actually  dis- 
cussed. It  had  been  a  warm  skirmish  but  was  merely  par- 
tisan warfare.9 

It  was  during  this  session  that  the  Massachusetts  Remon- 
strance against  the  war  was  presented  by  Pickering.  This 
paper,  now  so  much  out  of  fashion  as  to  be  stored  away  deep 
in  the  dust  of  history's  lumber-room,  took  strong  State-Rights 
ground.  Speaking  of  "  the  powers  reserved  to  the  State  Sov- 
ereignties," it  maintained  that  "  the  States,  as  well  as  the  in- 
dividuals composing  them,  are  parties  to  the  national  com- 
pact," while  it  sought  also  covertly  to  defend  impressment  by 
the  English  under  the  doctrine  of  national  allegiance,  which, 
it  went  on,  "  is  too  well  founded,  has  been  too  long  estab- 
lished, and  is  too  consonant  with  the  permanent  interest,  the 
peace  and  independence  of  all  nations,  to  be  disturbed  for  the 
purpose  of  substituting  in  its  place  certain  visionary  notions, 
to  which  the  French  Revolution  gave  birth,  and  which  though 
long  exploded  there,  seem  still  to  have  an  unhappy  influence 
in  our  country."  It  is  strange  to  find  the  early  Massachu- 
setts leaders  taking  such  grounds  as  these,  while  the  youthful 
Calhoun  expressed  at  once  his  disapproval  of  the  doctrines 
asserted  and  said  that  "  he  certainly  never  would  countenance 
what  might  be  considered  a  declaration  of  war  by  one  State 
against  another."  10 

9  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1813-14.  Vol. 
I,  PP-  435.  436,  438,  442,  470,  471.    Ibid.,  Second   Session,  pp.  824-828; 
Curtis's  "Webster,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  109-114,  117,  118.     Curtis  writes  that  dis- 
cussion of  these  last  resolutions  "  was  never  allowed  to  take  place,"  but 
this  fact  does  not  appear,  nor  does  it  seem  likely  in  view  of  the  ibsue 
upon  the  subject  at  the  prior  session,  unless  the  leaders  merely  desired 
to  avoid  the  consumption  of  time  imperatively  needed  for  more  important 
subjects. 

10  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1813-14,  Vol. 
I,  PP.  333-41,  347,  350,  351. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  149 

Nothing  more  of  interest  to  us  occurred  at  this  session, 
which  adjourned  on  August  2,  1813.  Calhoun  was  then,  no 
doubt,  once  more  at  home  for  a  time  with  his  family,  but  was 
present  again  on  Tuesday,  December  7,  the  day  after  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Second  Session.  This  was  the  great  session  of 
the  war  and  was  crowded  with  events  and  policies  connected 
with  it.  He  was  again  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Affairs,  and  was  also  the  third  member  on  a  com- 
mittee, of  which  Macon  was  chairman,  to  which  was  referred 
"  so  much  of  the  President's  Message  as  relates  to  the  retalia- 
tion of  our  government,  of  the  proceedings  of  the  enemy, 
contrary  to  the  legitimate  modes  of  warfare."  I  have  not 
found  that  he  took  any  active  part  in  the  proceedings  of  this 
latter  committee. 

Calhoun  of  course  supported  and  pressed  on  the  bill  to 
encourage  enlistments  by  giving  bounties,  and  all  the  meas- 
ures for  the  active  prosecution  of  the  war,  and  he  was  often 
on  his  feet  defending  our  conduct  of  it  and  answering  the 
indictments  of  the  opposition.  He  found  frequent  occasion 
in  particular  to  meet  the  jibes  of  Webster,  and  more  than  once 
denounced  the  bitter  opposition  of  this  member  and  of  others. 
On  February  8,  1814,  when  a  measure  to  raise  three  additional 
regiments  of  riflemen  was  pending,  and  Grosvenor  of  New 
York  and  Webster  had  been  pouring  out  the  vials  of  their 
wrath,  Calhoun  spoke  twice  in  defense  of  our  conduct  of  the 
war  and  expressed  his  astonishment  "  to  see  American  citi- 
zens, in  this  body  or  elsewhere,  get  up  and  tell  you  that  all 
your  objects  have  failed."  A  few  days  earlier,  too,  he  had 
spoken  with  no  little  asperity  of  certain  views  advanced  by 
Grosvenor  in  regard  to  the  slight  degree  of  protection  we  owed 
to  naturalized  citizens  fighting  in  our  armies,  winding  up  with 
a  hope  that  the  doctrine  "  was  confined  to  himself  and  had 
not  many  advocates,  even  in  his  own  party."  n  Possibly 
these  were  some  of  the  straws  that  led  to  a  serious  quarrel  he 
had  with  Grosvenor,  as  will  be  later  shown. 

The  assertion  that  we  were  waging  a  war  of  conquest 

11  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,   1813-14, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  1222,  1223,  1261-63. 


1 5o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

against  Canada,  and  that  other  long-lived  favorite  of  the  op- 
position,—  the  assertion  of  French  subserviency  on  the  part 
of  the  administration, —  had  of  course  to  be  met  on  more  than 
one  occasion.  To  the  former  Calhoun  always  replied  by  in- 
sisting that  our  attack  upon  Canada  was  called  for  by  the 
necessity  of  keeping  the  enemy's  forces  out  of  our  territory. 
The  true  criterion  was  "  the  motive  and  cause  which  led  to 
it  [the  attack]."  We  must  of  course  use  (so  his  speech  may 
be  summed  up)  the  means  most  likely  to  force  the  enemy  to 
respect  our  rights,  and  the  war  in  Canada  is  the  very  best 
security  for  our  own  territory  by  forcing  the  enemy  to  con- 
centrate his  whole  force  there  for  its  defense.  And  on  the 
same  point,  he  said  in  substance  upon  another  occasion,  the 
enemy  presses  us  both  on  the  seaboard  and  on  our  interior 
frontier.  On  the  seaboard  our  war  must  be  strictly  defens- 
ive, on  the  Canada  frontier  the  opposite.  It  must  there  be 
wholly  offensive.  This  was  plainly  our  course,  he  continued, 
for  if  we  have  a  sufficient  army  in  that  quarter,  the  enemy 
must  call  off  all  his  force  from  our  seaboard  or  at  once  lose 
his  colonies.  Fifty  thousand  men  at  least  ought  to  be  avail- 
able to  send  against  them.  "  He  did  hope,"  he  also  said, 
"  the  miserably  stale  and  absurd  objections  against  offensive 
operations  in  Canada  had  ceased,  till  he  heard  yesterday  the 
member  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  Webster]."12 

The  charge  of  French  subserviency  was  met  by  him  mainly 
by  ridicule,  as  was  possibly  best  when  dealing  with  an  asser- 
tion, to  disprove  which  would  have  called  for  the  proof  of  a 
negative,  and  which  was  altogether  lacking  in  foundation,  un- 
less a  feeling  of  sympathy  between  nations  constitutes  a  case 
of  subserviency.  He  dubbed  it  "  a  baseless  accusation  "  as 
applied  to  us;  and  again  after  the  fall  of  Napoleon  in  1814, 
when  referring  to  the  then  position  of  the  English,  he  said: 
"  The  magic  cry  of  French  influence  is  lost  ...  the  cry  of 
French  influence,  that  baseless  fiction,  that  phantom  of  fac- 
tion, now  banished."  13 

12  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,   1813-14, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  898,  995 ;  Ibid.,  Third  Session,  1814-15,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  466,  467. 

13  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  1813-14,  Vol.  I,  pp.  870, 
930,  995,  1261-63;  Ibid.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  1685,  1687;  ibid.f  1814-15,  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  466. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  151 

A  condition  of  the  utmost  seriousness  presented  itself  to 
our  country  early  in  1814.  Napoleon  had  met  with  his  great 
Russian  disaster  during  the  winter  of  1812-13  and  was  forced 
to  abdicate  on  April  5,  1814.  The  English,  then,  being  re- 
lieved of  the  war  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  were  at  once 
able  to  turn  all  their  vast  power  against  us.  The  dangers 
consequent  upon  this  state  of  affairs  were  great  indeed  and 
of  a  character  to  unnerve  a  man  who  had  been  actively  con- 
cerned in  bringing  on  the  war.  But  Calhoun,  though  his  na- 
ture seems  to  have  been  in  the  main  that  of  a  student  and 
thinker  rather  than  of  a  born  fighter,  was  by  no  means  ap- 
palled. On  the  contrary,  he  was  among  the  most  urgent  of 
the  young  Americans  to  press  his  countrymen  on  to  the  exer- 
tions necessary  to  meet  the  awful  crisis. 

The  administration  leaders  introduced  into  the  House  what 
was  known  in  the  language  of  the  day  as  the  Loan  Bill, —  a 
measure  proposing  to  borrow  the  sum  of  thirty  million  dol- 
lars. This  was  long  debated  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
the  discussion  took  a  very  wide  range,  members  using  the  op- 
portunity either  to  attack  or  to  defend  the  justice,  or  policy, 
of  the  war,  and  indulging  often  in  flights  of  eloquence  doubt- 
less intended  chiefly  for  their  constituents.  The  debate  was 
evidently  a  brilliant  one,  interspersed  with  many  stirring 
speeches,  and  its  scenes  lived  long  in  the  memories  of  the  ar- 
dent youths  who  took  part  in  it.  The  opposition  expatiated 
upon  the  utter  hopelessness  of  the  contest  under  the  circum- 
stances, and  seems  to  have  made  every  effort  to  defeat  this 
bill,14  which  sober  after  judgment  must  surely  look  upon  as 
having  been  absolutely  vital  to  our  welfare,  if  not  to  our  in- 
dependent existence. 

On  February  25,  Calhoun  took  the  floor  and  had  his  share 
in  this  species  of  saturnalia  of  debate.  The  opposition  ob- 
jected that  the  money  could  only  be  obtained  at  a  high  rate, 
but  Calhoun  declined  to  enter  into  this  question,  and  answered 
that  it  must  be  had  at  the  best  rate  at  which  we  could  get  it./ 
He  touched  on  impressment,  and  to  the  claim  of  the  opposi- 
tion that  the  British  merely  took  some  of  our  men  by  mistake, 

14  Calhoun's  "  Autobiography,"  p.  14. 


I52  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

answered  that  they  admitted  there  were  sixteen  hundred 
Americans  on  board  their  ships  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war 
and  then  said  "  the  duty  which  the  country  owes  to  the  im- 
pressed sailors  originates  in  a  single  fact,  that  they  are  un- 
justly deprived  by  a  foreign  nation  of  their  liberty.  The 
principle  on  which  they  are  deprived  of  their  liberty,  or  the 
manner,  constitutes  no  part  of  it.  ...  It  is  our  duty,  most 
sacredly  our  duty,  to  protect  the  life  and  liberty  of  our  citi- 
zens against  foreign  oppression.  Instead  of  doing  our  duty, 
we  have  for  many  years  quietly  beheld  them  forced  into  a 
hateful  foreign  service." 

Finally,  in  reply  to  the  contention  that,  after  the  recent 
events  in  Europe,  our  efforts  were  useless,  he  admitted  that 
the  enemy's  power  was  great  and  her  "  fortune  at  the  flood," 
but  then  went  on :  "  Such  prosperity  is  the  most  fickle  of 
human  conditions.  From  the  flood  the  tide  dates  its  ebb. 
.  .  .  He  can  now  no  more  claim  to  be  struggling  for  exist- 
ence. We  cannot  renounce  our  right  to  the  ocean,  which 
Providence  has  spread  before  our  doors,  nor  will  we  ever 
hold  that  which  is  the  immediate  gift  of  Heaven  under  the 
license  of  any  nation.  We  have  already  had  success  worthy 
of  our  cause.  The  future  is  audibly  pronounced  by  the  splen- 
did victories  over  the  Guerriere,  Java  and  Macedonian.  We, 
and  all  nations,  are  in  them  taught  a  lesson  never  to  be  forgot. 
Opinion  is  power.  The  charm  of  British  naval  invincibility 
is  broken."  15 

It  is  likely  that  once  more  Calhoun  went  home  to  his  fam- 
ily after  the  adjournment  of  this  session  on  April  18,  1814. 
During  his  absence,  about  the  end  of  January,16  his  wife  had 
given  birth  to  their  second  child,  Floride.  He  had  an  attack 
of  bilious  fever  in  the  following  fall 17  and  was  not  present 
when  the  third  session  met  on  September  19,  1814,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  President's  proclamation.  Hence,  it  happened 
that  at  the  time  he  took  his  seat,  on  October  19,  his  former 

15  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,   1813-14,   Second   Session, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  1673-94. 

16  "  Correspondence,"  p.  126. 

17  Speech  in  the  Senate  on  October  3,  1837,  printed  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill, 
p.  125. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  153 

position  at  the  head  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
was  already  filled  by  John  Forsyth;  but  he  none  the  less  re- 
mained very  prominent  upon  the  floor.  The  war  was  still 
going  on  and  the  tremendous  power  of  our  enemy  now  com- 
ing to  be  directed  against  us  alone  was  a  most  serious  prob- 
lem. Of  course,  no  one  knew  that  peace  was  in  reality  less 
than  three  months  off.  Questions  relating  directly  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  war  occupied  still  the  bulk  of  the  time, 
but  many  others  of  a  vital  nature,  which  the  changed  cir- 
cumstances after  the  war  were  destined  to  call  for,  began 
already  to  be  bruited  in  the  halls  of  legislation. 

Calhoun  was  in  Washington  less  than  a  week  when,  on 
October  25,  he  spoke  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Ways 
and  Means  to  add  one  hundred  per  cent,  to  the  then  amount 
of  direct  taxes.  "  He  did  not  rise,"  he  began  by  saying,  "  to 
consider  whether  the  war  was  originally  just  and  necessary; 
much  less,  whether  the  opposition,  according  to  the  very  mod- 
est declaration  of  the  member  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr. 
Webster]  possessed  all  the  talent  and  confidence  of  the  coun- 
try." And  then  he  continued  in  substance  that  his  object  was 
to  press  for  immediate  action.  You  have  for  enemy  the  most 
implacable  of  Powers,  now  freed  from  any  other  contest,  and 
who  will  the  next  campaign,  direct  his  whole  force  against 
you.  He  urged  action  upon  members,  descanting  upon  the 
backward  state  of  legislation  and,  soon  coming  to  the  deranged 
state  of  our  finances,  went  on :  "  In  the  next  place,  it  will  be 
necessary  (he  presumed  no  member  could  doubt  it)  to  take 
the  state  of  the  circulating  medium  into  consideration,  and 
to  devise  some  measure  to  render  it  more  safe  and  adapted 
to  the  purposes  of  finance.  The  single  fact,  that  we  have  no 
proper  medium,  commensurate  in  its  circulation  with  the 
Union  —  that  it  is  all  local  —  is  calculated  to  produce  much 
embarrassment  in  the  operations  of  the  Treasury.  But,  sir, 
after  we  have  passed  the  taxes  and  established  an  adequate 
circulating  medium,  .  .  .  much  still  will  remain  to  be 
done."  18 

18  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Third  Session,  1814-15,  Vol. 
Ill,  pp.  465-69.  I 


i54  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Calhoun  did  not  take  up  every  partisan  cry,  and  it  is  per- 
haps worth  noting  that,  when  a  resolution  was  introduced  for 
a  committee  to  inquire  into  the  question  of  alleged  treason- 
able correspondence  by  blue  lights,  he  said  at  once  that  the 
subject  was  too  small  to  be  worthy  the  attention  of  the  House 
and  hoped  it  would  lie  on  the  table.  It  was  then  immediately 
tabled  by  the  decisive  vote  of  89  to  42.19 

Broader  questions  of  public  policy  were  far  more  likely  to 
receive  his  attention.  In  1814  Hopkins  of  New  York  wanted 
to  raise  a  committee  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  pro- 
viding by  law  for  the  relief  of  those  who  had  suffered  losses 
by  irruptions  of  $ie  enemy  on  the  Niagara  frontier;  but  Cal- 
houn at  once  had , the  subject  tabled  so  as  to  give  time  to  re- 
flect,—  on  the  ground  that  it  introduced  a  novel  principle, — 
and  it  did  not  come  up  again  at  that  session  (the  Second  Ses- 
sion of  the  Thirteenth  Congress). 

Later,  however,  at  the  First  Session  of  the  Fourteenth  Con- 
gress it  was  again  pressed  and  a  law  was  passed  "  to  authorize 
the  payment  for  property  lost,  captured,  or  destroyed  by  the 
enemy,  while  in  the  military  service  of  the  United  States," 
and  a  commissioner  provided  to  hear  claims.  The  quoted 
clause  or  some  other  obscurity,  however,  led  to  such  a  liberal 
interpretation  as  threatened  to  let  in  a  host  of  cases  never 
intended  to  be  included,  and  at  the  second  session  of  the  same 
Congress  Forsyth  and  some  other  members  wanted  the  House 
to  pass  a  resolution  requesting  the  President  to  suspend  the 
execution  of  the  law.  Calhoun  opposed  this  for  reasons 
which  will  be  shown  in  another  place,20  and  the  final  result 
was  the  passage  of  a  new  statute  to  explain  and  limit  the  ef- 
fect of  the  original  one. 

19  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,   1813-14, 
Vol.  I,  pp.  1127-29,  1141.     Possibly  he  was  to  some  extent  influenced  in 
this  matter  by  his  observations  of  the  New  England  people  during  his 
years  of  study.    The  anonymous  author  of  "  Measures,  not  Men,  &c.," 
ut  supra  writes   (p.  6),  that  Calhoun  at  that  time  "studied  with  great 
attention  the  character  of  the  people  of  the  north-eastern  section  of  the 
Union;  and  it  was  probably  the  knowledge  thus  acquired,  that  enabled 
him,  during  the  darkest  moments  of  our  late  conflict  with  Great  Britain, 
to  contemplate  without  alarm  the  storm  which  lowered  in  that  quarter 
of  our  horizon.  ...  He  never  doubted  that  the  great  body  of  citizens  in 
New  England,  were  firmly  attached  to  the  Union." 

20  Infra.,  p.  214. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  155 

Clay  and  some  others  had  even  sought  to  enlarge  the  scope 
of  the  act,  despite  recent  experience  of  how  such  laws  are 
pretty  sure  to  be  interpreted,  but  Calhoun  was  against  any 
extension.  He  suggested  the  possible  burning  of  New  York, 
and  urged  that  individuals  must,  as  in  the  past,  bear  the  bur- 
den of  these  disasters.  Otherwise,  any  Government  might 
well  be  bankrupted.  There  was  in  this  law  and  the  proposed 
enlargement  of  it,  a  strong  flavor  of  that  private  benefit  to 
constituents,  which  has  always  appealed  strongly  to  our 
American  legislators  at  least,  but  Calhoun  was,  I  think,  mark- 
edly free  from  such  influences.21 

The  chief  struggle  during  the  last  of  the  war  sessions  of 
Congress  centred  around  the  effort  to  establish  a  national 
bank.  It  was  the  third  and  final  meeting  of  the  Thirteenth 
Congress  and  what  is  ordinarily  the  short  session,  but  this 
particular  one  had  met  on  September  19,  1814,  in  pursuance 
of  a  special  call  of  the  President,  and  did  not  then  adjourn 
until  the  expiration  of  the  Congress  on  March  4,  1815.  A 
great  part  of  its  time  was  taken  up  with  the  bank  question, 
but  it  will  be  necessary  in  the  first  place  to  show  in  a  few 
words  what  had  been  already  done,  or  at  least  attempted, 
upon  this  subject. 

On  January  4,  1814,  during  the  second  session  of  the  same 
Congress,  Lefferts  of  New  York  had  presented  a  petition  for 
the  establishment  of  a  national  bank.  Upon  Calhoun' s  mo- 
tion, it  was  printed,  and  it  was  then  referred,  against  Cal- 
houn's  wishes,  to  the  committee  on  ways  and  means,  of  which 
John  W.  Eppes,  Jefferson's  son-in-law,  was  chairman.  Eppes 
was  an  uncompromising  opponent  of  a,  national  bank,  and 
on  January  loth  reported  adversely  on  the  ground  of  uncon- 
stitutionality. 

This  was  apparently  the  end  of  the  matter,  but  Calhoun  was 
full  of  devices,  and  on  February  4th  he  suggested  that  the 
constitutional  difficulty  might  be  avoided  by  establishing  the 
bank  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  This  proposal  was  also 

21  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1813-14, 
Vol.  I,  p.  1141.  Ibid.,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16,  pp. 
1806-1809.  Ibid.,  Second  Session,  1816-17,  pp.  246,  291,  390-94,  428,  429, 
1345-47-  I  , 


156  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

referred  to  the  committee  of  ways  and  means,  and  on  Feb- 
ruary 1 9th  the  second  member  of  the  committee  (Taylor) 
reported  a  bill  to  establish  in  the  city  of  Washington  a  bank 
with  a  capital  of  thirty  millions.  Eppes,  the  chairman,  seems 
to  have  been  so  strongly  opposed  to  any  such  measure  that 
he  would  not  even  present  the  bill,  and  Taylor  expressed  him- 
self also  as  being  against  it.  The  proposed  bank  was  to  be 
entirely  confined  to  the  District,  and  some  members  were 
quite  clear  that  such  an  institution  could  not  possibly  furnish 
a  uniform  national  currency.  Consequently,  an  effort  was 
made  to  insert  the  power  to  establish  branches,  but  it  failed, 
and  it  was  not  then  long  before  this  plan  of  Calhoun's  proved 
as  abortive  as  had  the  earlier  one  of  Lefferts.  It  was  silently 
dropped. 

One  more  effort  was  made  late  in  the  same  session.  On 
April  2,  Grundy  moved  for  a  committee  upon  the  subject  and 
his  nearness  to  the  administration  seems  to  have  put  life  into 
the  plan  for  a  time.  Grundy 's  motion  was  carried  by  a  vote 
of  76  to  69,  after  the  overwhelming  defeat  of  an  effort  to 
confine  the  bank  to  the  District.  So  slight  was  by  that  time 
the  support  of  this  device  of  Calhoun  that  the  proposal  re- 
ceived only  32  votes.  But  the  session  was  too  far  gone  for  so 
vital  a  measure  to  succeed,  and  it  was  soon  indefinitely  post- 
poned. The  session  adjourned  on  April  i8th. 

During  the  recess  of  Congress  events  of  great  importance 
occurred,  and  Ingersoll  writes  that  "  the  course  of  hostilities 
.  .  .  gave  color,  if  not  cause,  for  resort  to  a  national  insti- 
tution." In  the  end  of  August,  Washington  was  captured, 
the  administration  fugitive,  and  soon  specie  payments  were 
stopped  south  of  New  England.  Paper  money  depreciated 
rapidly,  and  at  varying  rates  in  different  parts  of  the  country, 
and  the  chaos  of  our  finances  grew  even  far  worse  than  it 
had  been.  One  member  22  told  the  House  that  "  not  only  had 
Government  bills  been  dishonored,  and  the  interest  of  the  pub- 
lic debt  remained  unpaid,  but  ...  so  completely  empty  was 
the  Treasury,  and  destitute  of  credit,  that  funds  could  not  be 

22  Hanson  of  Maryland.  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress, 
Third  Session,  1814-15,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  656. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  157 

obtained  to  defray  the  current  ordinary  expenses  of  the  dif- 
ferent Departments.  .  .  .  The  Department  of  State  was  so 
bare  of  money  as  to  be  unable  even  to  pay  its  stationery  bills. 
.  .  .  Yes,  it  was  well  known  to  the  citizens  of  the  District, 
that  the  Treasury  was  obligated  to  borrow  pitiful  sums,  which 
it  would  disgrace  a  merchant  in  tolerable  credit  to  ask  for. 
Mr.  Hanson  mentioned  the  instance  of  an  acceptance  of 
$3500,  which  the  War  Department  was  unable  to  pay  and 
several  acceptances,  which  he  himself  had  seen,  for  large 
amounts,  which  had  been  protested  by  the  public  notary.  The 
Paymaster  was  unable  to  meet  demands  for  paltry  sums  — 
not  even  for  $30,  which  was  a  well  established  fact." 

This  state  of  affairs  was  close  to  chaos  and  led  to  other 
events  of  great  importance  in  relation  to  a  bank.  Since  Gal- 
latin  had  gone  to  Europe  to  seek  peace,  in  May  of  1813,  the 
Treasury  had  done  little  but  drift  in  expectation  of  his  re- 
turn. But  during  the  winter  of  1813-14  Madison  learned 
that  Gallatin's  return  was  not  to  be  expected.  He  had  al- 
ready been  thinking  of  a  successor  and  had  fixed  upon  Alex- 
ander James  Dallas,  a  distinguished  lawyer  of  Philadelphia, 
and  wanted  at  once  to  make  the  appointment ;  but  Dallas  had 
incurred  the  hostility  of  the  political  leaders  in  Pennsylvania, 
and  his  confirmation  would  have  been  more  than  doubtful. 
After  the  fall  of  Washington,  however,  public  affairs  were  in 
such  a  state  that  even  political  rancor  cooled  off;  and  In- 
gersoll  writes  that  Senator  Lacock  of  Pennsylvania  said  to 
the  President's  private  secretary :  "  Tell  Doctor  Madison 
that  we  are  now  willing  to  submit  to  his  Philadelphia  lawyer 
for  head  of  the  Treasury.  The  public  patient  is  so  very  sick 
that  we  must  swallow  anything  the  doctor  prescribes,  how- 
ever nauseous  the  bolus."  Dallas  was  accordingly  nominated 
by  Madison  on  October  5,  1814,  and  was  confirmed  the  next 
day.  It  was  well  known  that  his  appointment  meant  a  na- 
tional bank. 

Congress  was  then  already  sitting,  having  come  together  on 
September  iQth,  for  its  third  and  final  session, —  destined  to 
be  the  last  of  the  war  sessions.  The  Speaker  (Cheves)  had 
again  appointed  Eppes  Chairman  of  Ways  and  Means,  but 


158  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

had  reconstituted  the  committee  so  that  the  chairman  was  its 
only  anti-bank  member.  Eppes  proposed  further  issues  of 
Treasury  notes  and  some  increase  of  taxation,  but  called  upon 
Dallas  for  his  views,  and  the  latter  at  once  replied  strongly 
in  favor  of  a  national  bank.  Soon,  too,  the  House  passed  a 
resolution  for  such  an  institution  with  branches,  and  on  No- 
vember /th  a  bank  bill  was  accordingly  reported  which  was 
in  its  main  features  the  plan  of  Dallas.  The  latter  had,  at 
his  request,  been  heard  by  Eppes' s  committee  and  had  ear- 
nestly enforced  his  views. 

The  capital  was  to  be  $50,000,000, —  $6,000,000  of  the 
amount  in  specie,  the  rest  in  government  stock  issued  during 
the  war.  The  United  States  was  to  subscribe  $20,000,000. 
The  bank  could  not  sell  government  stock,  was  to  be  bound 
to  loan  the  United  States  $30,000,000,  as  soon  as  it  went 
into  operation,  and  the  President  of  the  United  States  was 
empowered  to  suspend  specie  payments  when  such  suspension 
seemed  necessary.  The  institution  was  beyond  doubt  pri- 
marily intended  as  a  means  of  securing  funds  to  carry  on  the 
war,  and  was  not  at  all  designed  to  lead  to  early  resumption. 

It  has  been  seen  that  Calhoun  had  arrived  late  at  this  ses- 
sion of  Congress,  owing  to  an  illness,  and  had  found  the  com- 
mittees all  made  up  when  he  reached  Washington,  on  October 
1 9th.  The  bank  question,  moreover,  was  by  this  time  well 
under  way  in  the  committee.  Eppes  had  received  Dallas' s 
reply  on  the  I7th,  in  which  the  Secretary  expressed  the  opin- 
ion that  a  national  bank  was  "  the  only  efficient  remedy,"  and 
one  week  later  (24th)  the  committee  reported  to  the  House 
the  resolution  in  favor  of  a  national  bank  with  branches  in 
the  several  States.  This  resolution,  moreover,  passed  on  Oc- 
tober 28th  by  the  decisive  vote  of  93  to  54,  after  the  over- 
whelming defeat  (138  to  14)  of  a  motion  to  strike  out  the 
provision  for  branches.  On  both  of  these  votes  Calhoun  was 
with  the  majority. 

Some  twenty-three  years  later  he  told  the  Senate  of  his 
connection  with  the  bank  question  at  this  time.  Immediately 
after  his  arrival  in  Washington,  he  said,  he  had  a  full  con- 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  159 

versation  upon  the  subject  with  Dallas,  at  the  latter 's  request, 
and  when  the  Secretary  had  explained  his  plan,  Calhoun  prom- 
ised to  give  it  early  and  favorable  attention.  "  At  the  time/' 
he  added,  "  I  had  reflected  but  little  on  the  subject  of  bank- 
ing." He  was  urged  by  friends  to  take  a  prominent  part  on 
the  subject  and  soon  examined  the  plan  fully,  "  with  every 
disposition  to  give  it  my  support,"  but  had  not  gone  far  before 
he  was  struck  with  its  extraordinary  character : 

"...  A  bank  of  $50,000,000  whose  capital  was  to  consist 
almost  exclusively  of  Government  credit  in  the  shape  of  stock, 
and  not  bound  to  pay  its  debts  during  the  war,  and  for  three 
years  afterwards,  to  furnish  the  Government  with  loans  to 
carry  on  the  war.  I  saw,  at  once,  that  the  effect  of  the  ar-M 
rangement  would  be,  that  the  Government  would  borrow  back 
its  own  credit,  and  pay  six  per  cent,  per  annum  for  what  theyj 
had  already  paid  eight  or  nine.  It  was  impossible  for  me 
to  give  it  my  support  under  any  pressure,  however  great.  I 
felt  the  difficulty  of  my  situation  not  only  in  opposing  the 
leading  measure  of  the  administration  at  such  a  crisis,  but, 
what  was  far  more  responsible,  to  suggest  one  of  my  own, 
that  would  afford  relief  to  the  embarrassed  treasury.  I  cast 
my  eyes  around,  and  soon  saw  that  the  Government  could  use 
its  own  credit  directly,  without  the  intervention  of  a  bank; 
which  I  proposed  to  do  in  the  form  of  treasury  notes,  to  be 
issued  in  the  operations  of  the  Government,  and  to  be  funded 
in  the  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the  bank.  Treasury  notes 
were,  at  that  time,  below  par,  even  with  bank  paper.  The 
opposition  to  them  was  so  great  on  the  part  of  the  banks,  that 
they  refused  to  receive  them  on  deposit,  or  payment,  at  par 
with  their  notes;  while  the  Government,  on  its  part,  received 
and  paid  away  notes  of  the  banks  at  par  with  its  own.  Such 
was  the  influence  of  the  banks,  and  to  such  degradation  did 
the  Government,  in  its  weakness,  submit.  All  this  influence 
I  had  to  encounter,  with  the  entire  weight  of  the  adminis- 
tration thrown  into  the  same  scale.  I  hesitated  not.  I  saw 
the  path  of  duty  clearly,  and  determined  to  tread  it,  sharp 
and  rugged  as  it  was  —  and  [so  he  had  said  earlier  in  the 


i6o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

same  speech]  never  in  my  life  was  I  exposed  to  more  calumny 
and  abuse.  ...  It  was  my  first  lesson  on  the  subject.  I 
shall  never  forget  it."  23 

Thus,  the  administration  had  the  opposition  of  a  man, 
usually  one  of  its  leading  supporters,  and  whose  power  the 
course  of  this  bill  will  soon  show  to  have  been  very  great. 
Unfortunately  for  us  here,  Calhoun's  speeches  upon  the  sub- 
ject have  not  been  preserved,  for,  in  accordance  with  his  gen- 
eral custom  when  opposing  his  friends,  he  declined  to  publish 
\  them.  His  object  being  merely  to  defeat  the  bill  and  not 
to  distract  his  party  or  injure  the  administration,  he  limited 
himself  rigidly  to  accomplishing  his  one  object  and  bore  in 
patience  the  denunciations  levelled  at  him.  By  this  course, 
according  to  the  "  Autobiography,"  he  generally  succeeded 
in  maintaining  his  standing  with  the  party,  despite  his  op- 
position upon  the  specific  point. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  Bank  Bill  was  presented  on  No- 
vember 7th.  The  measure  was  then  discussed  for  a  few  days, 
and  on  November  i6th  Calhoun  offered  a  substitute.  His 
already  quoted  later  account  of  the  matter  indicates  that  this 
was  his  own  device,  and  it  was  certainly  an  ambitious  under- 
taking for  a  young  man,  who  himself  has  told  us  that  he  had 
at  that  time  reflected  but  little  on  banking,  while  to  this  he 
adds  in  his  campaign  "  Autobiography  "  that  "  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  banking,  theoretically  and  practically,  was,  in  a  great 
measure,  new  to  him.  He  had  never  given  it  a  serious  and 
careful  attention." 

It  seems  probable  that  he  was  right  in  his  objection  to  the 
Dallas  plan,  of  which  Professor  Catterall  speaks  as  "  a  mon- 
strous scheme,"  but  his  substitute  was  at  least  equally  faulty 
in  other  ways.  He  fully  intended  that  "  instead  of  a  mere 

V  paper  machine,  it  should  be  a  specie-paying  bank,  but  it  was 
to  be  based  on  the  issue  of  new  Treasury-notes,  thus  in  real- 
ity still  further  drowning  the  country  with  paper  money.  It 
will  be  said  later  24  that  Calhoun  seems  to  have  had  a  predilec- 
tion for  Treasury  Notes  in  these  early  years,  and  Ingersoll 

23  Speech  of  October  3,  1837,  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  102,  125-128. 

24  See  p.  195,  post. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  161 

adds  that  there  was  at  this  time  an  outburst  among  us  of 
advocacy  of  paper  money.  The  apostles  of  that  frequently 
recurring  creed  denied  then,  as  often  since,  the  value  of  bul- 
lion and  taught  the  essential  superiority  of  promises  to  pay. 
"  While  the  bank  was  undergoing  its  many  trials  in  Con- 
gress," writes  Ingersoll,  "  even  Mr.  Calhoun  was  pleased  with 
that  novelty.  The  National  Intelligencer  was  filled  with  its 
metaphysics." 

Calhoun  said  in  his  later  account  that  he  accompanied  his 
amendment  with  a  short  speech  of  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes. 
The  speech  was,  in  accordance  with  his  custom  when  opposed 
to  his  party,  never  published,  but  the  "  Annals  "  give  an  out- 
line of  it.  They  tell  us  that  Calhoun 

...  In  a  very  ingenious  and  elaborate  speech,  laid  before  the 
House  his  views  on  this  subject,  and  the  reasons  why  he  should 
propose  a  total  change  in  the  features  of  the  bill.  .  .  .  The  capi- 
tal of  the  bank  remaining  unchanged  at  50  millions,  the  payments 
of  subscriptions  to  this  capital  stock  to  be  made  in  the  propor- 
tion of  Koth  in  specie  (which  he  afterwards  varied  to  %0ths) 
and  the  remainder  in  specie  or  in  Treasury  notes  to  be  hereafter 
issued :  subscriptions  to  be  opened  monthly  in  the  last  three  days 
of  each  month  beginning  with  January  next,  for  certain  propor- 
tions of  the  stock  until  the  whole  is  subscribed  —  payment  to  be 
made  at  the  time  of  subscribing;  the  shares  to  consist  of  one 
dred  instead  of  five  hundred  dollars  each.  The  United  States  to7 
hold  no  stock  in  bank,  nor  any  agency  in  its  disposal,  nor  control  I 
over  its  operations,  nor  rights  to  suspend  specie  payments.  The* 
amount  of  Treasury  notes  to  be  subscribed,  viz.  45  millions,  to 
be  provided  for  by  future  Acts  of  Congress  and  to  be  disposed 
of  in  something  like  the  following  way,  viz.:  15  millions  of  the 
amount  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  agents  appointed  for  the 
purpose,  or  in  the  hands  of  the  present  Commissioners  of  the 
Sinking  Fund  to  go  into  the  stock  market,  to  convert  the  Treas- 
ury notes  into  stock ;  another  sum,  say  five  millions,  to  be  applied 
to  the  redemption  of  the  Treasury  notes  becoming  due  at  the 
commencement  of  the  ensuing  year ;  the  remaining  20  millions  he 
proposed  to  throw  into  circulation  as  widely  as  possible.  They 
might  be  used  in  such  proportions  monthly  as  to  be  absorbed  in 
the  subscriptions  to  the  bank  at  the  end  of  each  month,  etc.  This 
operation,  he  presumed,  would  raise  the  value  of  Treasury  notes 


162  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

perhaps  twenty  or  thirty  per  cent,  above  par,  being  the  value  of 
the  privilege  of  taking  the  bank  stock,  and  thus  afford  at  the  same 
time  a  bonus  and  an  indirect  loan  to  the  Government,  making 
unnecessary  any  loan  by  the  bank  until  its  extended  circulation 
of  paper  shall  enable  it  to  make  a  loan  which  shall  be  advan- 
tageous to  the  United  States.  The  Treasury  notes  so  to  be  is- 
sued to  be  redeemable  in  stock  at  six  per  cent.,  disposable  by  the 
bank  at  its  pleasure,  and  without  the  sanction  of  the  Government ; 
to  whom  neither  is  the  bank  to  be  compelled  to  loan  any  money. 
This,  it  is  believed,  is,  in  a  few  words,  a  fair  statement  of  the 
project  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  which  he  supported  by  a  variety  of 
explanations  of  its  operations,  etc. :  the  notes  of  the  bank,  when 
in  operation,  to  be  received  exclusively  in  the  payment  of  all 
taxes,  duties,  and  debts  to  the  United  States.  The  operation  of 
this  combined  plan,  Mr.  Calhoun  conceived,  would  be  to  afford 
i.  Relief  from  the  immediate  pressure  on  the  Treasury;  2.  A 
permanent  elevation  of  the  public  credit ;  and  3.  A  permanent  and 
safe  circulating  medium  of  general  credit.  The  bank  should  go 
into  operation,  he  proposed,  in  April  next.  .  .  .  This  motion 
opened  a  wide  and  interesting  scene  of  debate. 

Calhoun  writes  in  his  "Autobiography," —  and  the  same 
view  is  pretty  clearly  expressed  in  an  anonymous  pamphlet 25 
of  a  few  years  later, —  that  he  thought  the  administration 
bill  had  been  drawn  entirely  in  the  interests  of  the  financial 
classes,  while  his  proposal  was  designed  to  guard  those  of  the 
people.  The  pamphleteer  says  upon  this  point  that  Dallas's 
plan  "  would  have  resulted  in  giving  to  those  from  whom  the 
government  had  already  borrowed  on  very  disadvantageous 
terms,  the  additional  premium  of  .the  bank  dividend.  ._.:»' 
Calhoun's  scheme  left  the  previous  creditors  of  the  govern- 
ment precisely  where  their  contract  had  placed  them ;  and 
held  out  to  future  lenders  those  privileges  which  the  other 
scheme  proposed  giving  to  persons  from  whom  there  was 
nothing  to  expect,  at  least  as  the  immediate  result  of  the 
scheme." 

The  unknown  author  of  this  same  pamphlet  thinks  also  that 
Calhoun  feared  that  grave  results  might  flow  from  the  vary- 

28  "  Measures  not  Men,"  &c.,  ut  supra,  pp.  15,  16. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  163- 

ing  degrees  of  depreciation  in  different  portions  of  the  coun- 
try, for  all  the  import  trade  would  inevitably  gravitate 
towards  that  part  where  the  depreciation  was  at  its  worst,  and 
hence  each  section  would  vie  with  every  other  to  attain  this 
evil  pre-eminence.  "  It  requires  no  great  sagacity,"  so  he 
goes  on,  "to  foresee  that  such  a  state  of  things  would  pro- 
duce collusions  extremely  dangerous  to  the  union.  So  deeply 
was  Mr.  Calhoun  impressed  with  these  views  of  the  subject 
that  he  labored  day  and  night,  in  the  House,  and  out  of  it,  dur- 
ing the  progress  of  the  bank  bill,  to  communicate  his  impres- 
sions to  the  members  of  Congress.  His  views  were  so  ex- 
clusively national  and  so  obviously  disinterested  that  he  finally 
triumphed  over  the  private  interest  and  political  opinion  with 
which  he  had  to  contend."26 

The  debate  on  Calhoun's  substitute  need  not  be  followed 
here,  nor  does  it  need  to  be  said  that  his  substitute  was  highly 
disapproved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  leaders 
in  general.  One  prominent  member,27  who  was  very  close 
to  Dallas,  said  that  while  in  his  opinion  Calhoun's  "  views 
were  exhibited  in  a  clear,  connected,  and  well-digested  dis- 
course on  this  abstruse  and  complicated  subject  in  which  he 
unquestionably  showed  at  least  his  own  preparation  and  ca- 
pacity for  explaining  and  supporting  any  favorite  project  he 
may  choose  to  introduce  ...  I  declare  my  unequivocal  opin- 
ion that  his  appears  to  be  the  most  fantastic,  impracticable, 
and,  I  will  add,  pernicious  of  all  the  plans  we  could  adopt, 
calculated  inevitably  to  destroy  the  public  credit  of  this  Gov- 
ernment —  to  damn  it  to  all  eternity." 

Notwithstanding  this  opinion,  which  may  well  have  re- 
flected the  views  of  the  administration,  Calhoun's  substitute 
was  the  next  day  passed,  with  the  aid  of  the  Federalists,  by 
a  majority  "  of  about  60  votes."  A  man  who  could  so  quickly 
bring  about  such  a  result  and  completely  overthrow  the  plans 
of  the  administration,  had  certainly  to  be  reckoned  with.  He 
continued  very  active  during  the  balance  of  the  debate  upon 

2«  Ibid.,   p.    22. 

27  Charles  J.  Ingersoll  of  Pennsylvania ;  "  Annals  of  Congress,"  Thir- 
teenth Congress,  1814-15,  Third  Session,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  605. 


1 64  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

'  the  subject  and  said  on  one  occasion  that  "  he  was  extremely 
anxious  that  the  bank  should  be  established,"  28  but  this  ex- 
pression is  evidently  to  be  interpreted  as  meaning  only  under 
the  then  existing  circumstances  and  not  in  the  abstract. 
Speaking  some  years  later  in  the  Senate  of  his  course  upon 
the  subject  in  1816,  he  said  that  he  "  was  opposed  to  the  sys- 
tem at  the  time  and  so  expressed  himself  in  his  opening  speech 
on  the  question.  In  supporting  the  Bank,  then,  he  yielded  to 
what  he  believed  to  be  the  necessity  of  the  case,  growing  out 
of  the  connection  between  the  Government  and  the  banks."  29 

But  Calhoun's  scheme  soon  met  with  troubles,  and  his  tri- 
umph was  of  short  duration.  He  said30  in  later  years  that 
"  the  opposition,  the  adherents  of  the  administration,  and  those 
who  had  constitutional  scruples  "  combined  against  it.  Ing- 
ham,  Forsyth,  and  Fisk  attacked  the  plan  vigorously,  and 
even  his  close  friend  Lowndes  made  an  effort  to  reduce  the 
capital  from  fifty  to  thirty-five  millions.  So  numerous  and 
extensive  were  the  amendments,  many  of  them  carried  by 
decisive  majorities,  that  the  "  Annals ' '  record  that,  when  the 
bill  was  at  length  reported  from  the  committee  of  the  whole 
to  the  House,  "  it  was  so  interleaved  and  interlined  with 
amendments  .  .  .  that  the  clerk  himself  could  hardly  arrange 
them  or  the  Speaker  state  them  to  the  House  [and]  it  was 
ordered  to  lie  on  the  table,  and  be  printed  as  amended." 

The  House  was  indeed  at  a  deadlock,  and  on  November  25, 
Lowndes  had  the  bill  referred  to  another  select  committee, 
in  the  hope  that  they  might  reconcile  conflicting  views  and  in- 
terests. Lowndes,  Fisk,  Calhoun,  Ingham,  Forsyth,  Oakley, 
and  Gaston  were  the  committee,  and  the  chairman  was  di- 
rected by  them  to  write  to  Dallas  for  his  opinion.  Dallas, 
who  was  born  in  Jamaica,  was,  according  to  Ingersoll,  a  man 
of  "tropical  excitability."  At  least  once  during  his  bank 
troubles  he  threatened  to  resign,  and  he  would  shed  tears  at 

28  Annals   of   Congress,  Thirteenth   Congress,  Third   Session,   1814-15, 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  643. 

29  Speech  on  his  Slavery  Resolutions  of  1838 :    "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  172 ; 
see  also  "Autobiography,"  p.  22. 

80  Speech  of  October  3,  1837,  in  Senate ;  "  Works/'  III,  pp.  102  et  seq., 
127. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  165 

the  trials  he  was  subjected  to,  but  there  was  no  uncertain 
sound  in  his  reply  to  this  inquiry. 

He  opposed  most  strongly  Calhoun's  Treasury  note  plan, 
which  would,  he  said,  give  a  gratuitous  advantage  to  new  cred- 
itors over  the  old  ones  and  would  thus  excite  dissatisfaction 
among  the  latter,  as  well  as  among  capitalists  in  general,  and 
have  an  injurious  effect  on  our  credit  and  upon  the  prospects 
of  a  loan  for  1815.  The  present  owners,  he  went  on,  can 
only  become  subscribers  to  such  a  bank  by  selling  their  hold- 
ings at  a  loss  in  order  to  procure  the  needed  Treasury  notes, 
"  and  a  general  depression  in  the  value  of  the  public  debt  will 
inevitably  ensue."  The  experiment,  too,  of  issuing  so  large 
an  amount  ($44,000,000)  of  Treasury  notes  was  in  his  opin- 
ion of  very  uncertain  success,  and  he  even  thought  it  would  be 
impossible  to  get  them  into  circulation,  with  or  without  de- 
preciation. Professor  Catterall  is  of  opinion  that  Dallas's 
answer  "  annihilated  Calhoun's  position." 

Efforts  were  made  to  bring  Calhoun  and  Dallas  together, 
but  they  were  all  unavailing,  and  in  a  short  time  Lowndes  re- 
ported the  bill  back  to  the  House  from  his  committee,  because 
of  their  inability  to  agree.  Lowndes's  motion  to  reduce  the 
capital  to  $30,000,000  was  then  carried,  with  the  aid  of  the 
Federalists  and  against  Calhoun's  zealous  opposition,  and 
shortly  afterwards  the  whole  scheme  was  defeated  on  third 
reading  by  104  Nays  to  49  Ayes.  It  was  at  this  time  in  large 
part  based  on  Calhoun's  plan,  so  that  the  House  had  finally 
turned  its  back  on  his  amendment,  which  had  but  a  couple  of 
weeks  before  swept  everything  before  it.  His  triumph  had 
been  short,  indeed. 

The  Senate  next  took  the  matter  up  and  soon  passed  a  bill 
based  on  Dallas's  plan.  When  this  measure  reached  the 
House,  it  was  for  some  time  hotly  discussed.  Ingersoll  writes 
that  December  28,  1814,  was  "  the  stormiest  bank  day  of  the 
session";  but  finally,  on  January  2,  1815,  after  Webster  had 
made  a  speech  upon  the  whole  general  subject, —  which  was, 
according  to  Ingersoll,  "  quite  superior  to  anything  said  on 
either  side  during  the  session," —  the  final  vote  was  taken  and 


1 66  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

turned  out  to  be  8 1  for  and  80  against.  Lowndes  voted  Aye 
and  Calhoun  No,  but  the  bank  men  were  once  more  doomed 
to  disappointment,  for  Speaker  Cheves,  owing  to  his  strong 
convictions  against  paper  money,  announced, —  so  the  "An- 
nals "  record, — "  with  even  more  than  his  usual  eloquence  and 
impressiveness  "  his  opinion  that  the  measure  was  a  dangerous 
and  desperate  experiment  and  that  he  should  therefore  exer- 
cise his  right  and  vote  against  it.  This  reduced  the  vote  to  a 
tie,  so  once  more  the  bank  was  lost. 

At  this  point  the  strain  seems  to  have  been  for  a  moment 
too  great  for  Calhoun.  Webster  told  a  friend  years  later  that 
upon  the  final  loss  of  this  bill,  Calhoun,  though  opposed  to  the 
particular  measure,  was  so  much  overcome  at  the  predicament 
in  which  the  government  was  left,  with  the  finances  in  hope- 
less confusion  and  no  means  of  carrying  on  the  war,  that  he 
"  walked  across  the  floor  of  the  House  to  the  spot  where  Mr. 
Webster  stood,  and  holding  out  both  his  hands  to  Mr.  Webster, 
and  telling  him  that  he  should  rely  on  his  assistance  in  prepar- 
ing a  new  bill,  burst  into  tears,  as  Mr.  Webster  assured  him 
the  assistance  should  not  be  withheld."  31 

The  persistence  of  members  was,  however,  not  yet  ex- 
hausted. After  the  bank  was  thus  lost  by  a  tie  vote,  recon- 
sideration was  moved  and  carried  and  the  whole  plan  then 
once  again  referred  to  a  fresh  special  committee,  and  they 
in  turn  reported  a  bill  which  was  to  a  considerable  extent  based 
on  Calhoun's  plan,  though  with  several  modifications.  The 
stock  was  to  be  $30,000,000,  composed  of  $5,000,000  of  specie, 
$10,000,000  of  war  stock  and  $15,000,000  of  treasury  notes. 
The  Dallas  provisions  for  a  compulsory  loan  and  giving  power 
to  the  President  to  suspend  specie  payments  were  not  included. 
The  bill  passed  the  House  shortly  by  a  large  majority,  and 
then,  after  a  vain  struggle  to  amend,  the  Senate  yielded  and 
accepted  the  House  bill  as  it  stood,  but  still  again  the  result 
was  failure,  for  the  President  vetoed  on  the  grounds  that  too 
much  specie  and  too  few  notes  were  called  for  as  the  founda- 
tion of  the  bank  and  that  it  was  made  too  independent  of  the 
Government. 

31  Curtis's  "  Webster,"  Vol.  I,  p.  143.  Webster  told  this  story  to  George 
Ticknor,  who  made  a  record  of  it  and  later  communicated  it  to  Curtis. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  167 

One  vital  point  of  difference  between  opposing  interests  in 
Congress  all  through  the  long  struggle  had  been  as  to  the 
character  "of  the  stocks  which  should  compose  the  capital,  and 
Ingersoll  writes  that  it  was  to  this  difference  that  the  whole 
scheme  fell  a  victim.  The  great  point  was  whether  any  United 
States  stock  might  serve  this  purpose,  or  whether  the  advan- 
tage should  be  confined  to  war  loans.  Dallas's  plan  provided 
for  the  latter,  and  the  Federalists,  wanting  the  profit  of  the 
bank  to  enure  to  their  benefit  as  well  as  to  that  of  the  support- 
ers of  the  war,  were  strongly  opposed  to  this  feature.  Cal- 
houn's  plan  of  basing  the  institution  on  treasury  notes  to  be 
issued,  is  said  to  have  largely  avoided 32  this  point  of  differ- 
ence, but  many  were  the  compromises  offered  in  this  "  battle 
of  the  stocks." 

The  session  was  nearing  its  end  and  nothing  had  been  ac- 
complished, so  a  caucus  was  called  which  Calhoun  and  his 
friends  were  specially  invited  to  attend.  A  compromise  was 
then  proposed  based  in  part  on  his  plan  and  in  part  on  that 
of  Dallas.  Calhoun  found  this  much  nearer  his  idea,  but  still 
objectionable  in  some  particulars,  and  he  demanded  further 
concessions.  These  were,  however,  refused,  and  he  was  told 
the  bill  could  be  passed  without  the  aid  of  himself  and  his 
friends,  upon  which,  he  says,  "  I  took  up  my  hat  and  bade 
good  night."  The  proposed  bill  was  then  easily  passed  in  the 
Senate  and  sent  to  the  House.  On  second  reading,  Calhoun 
says  that  he  reminded  members  that  they  were  about  to  vote 
for  a  measure,  against  their  frequently  expressed  conviction, 
spurred  on  by  a  supposed  necessity  which  had  been  created  by 
those  expecting  to  profit  from  it.  They  all  knew,  he  told  them, 
that  the  bill  would  not  receive  fifteen  votes,  if  peace  should 
arrive  before  its  passage. 

This  suggestion  must,  for  reasons  which  will  immediately 
be  apparent,  have  been  made  by  him  on  Monday,  February 
1 3th,  on  which  date  the  "Annals"  merely  record  that  he 
delivered  "  a  pithy  speech  of  moderate  length."  At  the  time, 

32  Catterall's  "  Second  Bank,"  p.  12.  I  am  unable  to  understand  this, 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  Calhoun's  plan  was  equally  intended  for  the 
benefit  of  the  holders  of  war  issues.  In  his  speech  he  expressed  the  opin- 
ion that  it  would  largely  raise  the  market  value  of  Treasury  notes, —  which 
were  entirely  issued  during  the  war. 


168  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

he  says,  he  had  not  the  slightest  anticipation  of  peace.  The 
war  had  indeed  never  shown  a  more  grim  visage  and  England 
was  making  extensive  preparations  for  the  coming  campaign. 
But  that  very  evening  Sturges,  a  member  from  Connecticut, 
told  Calhoun  in  confidence  that  a  treaty  of  peace  had  arrived 
in  New  York.  He  had  heard  of  it  by  express  from  his 
brother,  a  merchant  in  that  city,  who  wanted  the  news  sent 
on  at  once  to  his  connected  houses  in  the  South,  so  that  they 
might  buy  the  great  staples  at  the  then  prevailing  war  prices. 
Calhoun  kept  the  secret,  but  it  was  too  big  to  be  hidden  under 
a  bushel,  and  the  very  next  day  ( I4th)  was  generally  known, 
and  on  the  I5th  officially  announced.33 

Calhoun  said  in  his  speech  of  1837  that  when  peace  was  gen- 
erally rumored  the  House  declined  to  act  until  positive  in- 
formation should  be  received,  and  then  on  his  motion  the  bill 
was  laid  on  the  table,  "  and  I  had  the  gratification  of  receiving 
the  thanks  of  many  for  defeating  the  bill,  who,  a  short  time 
before,  were  almost  ready  to  cut  my  throat  for  my  persevering 
opposition  to  the  measure.  An  offer  was  then  made  to  me 
to  come  to  my  terms,  which  I  refused,  declaring  that  I  would 
rise  in  my  demand,  and  would  agree  to  no  bill  which  should 
not  be  formed  expressly  with  the  view  to  the  speedy  restora- 
tion of  specie  payments.  It  was  afterwards  postponed,  on 
the  conviction  that  it  could  not  be  so  modified  as  to  make  it 
acceptable  to  a  majority." 

These  details  are  all  no  doubt  strictly  accurate,  though  they 
do  not  appear  either  in  Ingersoll  or  in  the  very  incomplete 
"  Annals."  According  to  these  latter  authorities,  a  few  days 
following  the  news  of  peace  were  passed  in  rejoicing,  before 
the  bank  bill  was  again  taken  up  in  the  House.  On  the  I7th, 
there  was  desultory  debate  and  some  members  wanted  to  press 
the  bill  on,  but  it  was  of  course  apparent  that  peace  had  put 
an  entirely  new  face  upon  the  matter,  and  before  very  long 
Lowndes  suggested  this  fact  and  moved  indefinite  postpone- 

83  Parton's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  249-55,  being  the  account  given  many 
years  later  by  the  editor  of  the  "National  Intelligencer."  Ingersoll 
("  Second  War,"  Vol.  II,  1814,  p.  311,  but  see  p.  261)  writes  that  the  official 
treaty  was  delivered  to  Madison  in  Washington  "  on  Tuesday  evening  the 
I3th."  But  Tuesday  was  in  reality  the  I4th.  See  also  Schouler's  "His- 
tory," Vol.  II,  p.  430. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  169 

ment.  It  may  be  fairly  surmised  that  he  took  this  step,  after 
Calhoun  had  been  sounded  and  had  insisted  on  provisions 
which  it  was  perfectly  apparent  could  not  pass.  Lowndes's 
motion  was  carried  by  the  close  vote  of  74  to  73,  Calhoun 
voting  Nay,  and  thus  the  eighth34  consecutive  effort  to  es- 
tablish a  national  bank  had  failed,  and  the  administration  was 
compelled  still  to  get  on  as  best  it  could  without  the  assistance 
of  an  agency  which  was  in  their  opinion  indispensable.  The 
war  was  over,  but  the  whole  financial  system  left  in  awful  con- 
fusion. Out  of  these  circumstances  arose  other  great  policies, 
to  which  we  must  now  turn.  It  will  be  necessary,  moreover, 
to  go  backward  somewhat  in  time. 

Probably,  the  most  important  of  the  policies  referred  to  was 
the  tariff,  and  this  subject  is  of  great  moment  in  a  Life  of 
Calhoun,  for  reasons  which  are  obvious  enough.  During  the 
time  of  the  restrictive  system  and  the  war,  a  number  of  lines 
of  manufacture  had  sprung  up  in  our  country,  entirely  new 
and  at  least  many  of  them  dependent  for  their  existence  upon 
the  exclusion  of  competing  foreign  goods.  What  was  to  be 
done  with  these?  This  question  came  up  for  discussion  be- 
fore the  end  of  the  war,  and  was  first  brought  into  prominence 
about  the  time  of  the  final  repeal  of  the  restrictive  system. 
The  repeal  threatened  to  let  foreign  goods  find  their  way  into 
the  country,  and  doubtless  the  manufacturers  at  once  grew 
anxious  upon  the  bare  rumor  of  such  a  plan. 

It  has  already  been  seen35  that,  on  April  6,  1814,  during 
the  Second  Session  of  the  Thirteenth  Congress,  the  House 
went  into  committee  of  the  whole  upon  Calhoun's  motion  on 
the  bill  which  he  had  introduced  two  days  before  to  repeal  in 
general  the  restrictive  system.  It  was  there  shown  that  this 

3*Ingersoll  ("Second  War"  (1814),  Vol.  II,  p.  261)  counts  this  as  the 
ninth  effort,  while  Prof.  Catterall  ("Second  Bank,"  pp.  16,  2i)  calls  it 
the  sixth.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  the  eighth,  but  naturally  persons  reckon 
variously  where  it  is  not  clear  whether  a  particular  motion  is  different  to 
a  sufficient  degree  to  constitute  a  new  plan  or  not.  My  account  of  the 
bank  struggle  is  based  chiefly  on  Catterall's  "  Second  Bank,"  pp.  1-21 ; 
Ingersoll's  "Second  War,"  Vol.  II  (1814),  pp.  249-263;  and  the  Annals 
of  Congress.  I  am  very  greatly  indebted  to  Prof.  Catterall's  account,  and 
have  to  a  considerable  extent  relied  on  it.  Ingersoll  was  an  eyewitness 
of  and  participant  in  nearly  all  he  relates. 

36  Ante,  p.  136. 


i;o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

measure  had  been  recommended  by  the  President  in  a  message 
of  March  31.  On  April  5,  1814,  so  closely  were  all  these 
plans  bound  together,  Ingham  of  Pennsylvania  offered  in  the 
House  a  resolution  that  "  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be 
directed  to  report  to  Congress,  at  their  next  session,  a  general 
tariff  of  duties,  conformably  to  the  existing  situation  of  the 
general  and  local  interests  of  the  United  States";  and  this, 
after  a  short  discussion,  was  agreed  to  without  objection. 

With  these  proposals  in  mind,  and  in  view  of  all  the  cir- 
cumstances then  prevailing,  Calhoun  spoke  as  follows  upon 
the  proposed  repeal  of  the  restrictive  system : 

"  He,  as  a  grower  of  produce,  should  certainly  feel  an  inter- 
est in  striking  out  that  section,"  he  said,  referring  to  the  third 
section,  which  contained  provisions  still  to  restrict  the  freedom 
of  foreign  shipping,  "  as  it  was  the  interest  of  the  planter  to 
let  commerce  run  in  any  channel  it  might  wear  for  itself.  .  .  . 
As  to  the  manufacturing  interest,  it  could  not  be  considered 
as  disregarded  when  there  existed  a  duty  of  fifty  per  cent,  on 
the  invoice  duty  [value?]  of  foreign  goods.  If  this  was  not 
encouragement,  he  knew  not  what  was.  The  vote  of  the 
House  yesterday  [upon  Ingham's  motion]  required  a  general 
tariff  to  be  laid  before  it  [and?]  conveyed  a  pledge  that  the 
manufacturing  interest  should  be  protected.  Double  duties 
would  not  protect  it  properly:  double  duties  on  coffee  and 
sugar  offered  no  encouragement  to  the  manufacture  of  broad- 
cloth. He  hoped  to  see  manufacturing  encouraged  by  appro- 
priate duties,  and  had  no  idea  of  their  being  left  without  such 
protection." 

Later  in  the  same  day,  while  opposing  a  motion  to  strike  out 
the  second  section,  which  repealed  the  non-importation  acts, 
Calhoun  said  further  as  follows : 

He  thought  the  gentleman  was  mistaken  in  supposing  that  our 
infant  manufacturing  institutions  would  be  embarrassed  by  this 
measure.  What  was  the  encouragement  they  now  received  from 
the  Government?  The  ad  valorem  duties  now  averaged  about 
33%  per  cent.  Most  of  the  importation  being  in  neutral  bottoms, 
the  discriminating  duty  of  10  per  cent,  on  such  importations  in 
foreign  vessels  would  make  it  43  per  cent,  and  when  were  added 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  171 

to  this  the  freight  and  other  expenses  incident  to  a  state  of  war, 
the  actual  duty  on  foreign  and  premium  to  domestic  manufactures 
could  not  be  less  than  50  per  cent.  Was  it  wise  to  extend  to 
our  manufacturers  further  encouragement  than  this?  During  a 
state  of  war  too  great  a  stimulus  was  naturally  given  to  manu- 
factures —  a  stimulus  so  great  that  it  could  not  be  expected  to  be 
continued  in  a  time  of  peace ;  and  when  peace  comes,  come  when 
peace  will,  the  vicissitude  which  manufacturers  must  experience 
will  be  much  greater  and  injurious  to  them,  if  besides  the  double 
duties  the  restrictive  system  were  retained,  than  it  ought  to  or 
would  otherwise  be.  The  great  requisite  to  the  due  encourage- 
ment of  manufacturers  now  was,  that  certain  manufactures  in 
cotton  and  woolens,  which  have  kindly  taken  root  in  our  soil, 
should  have  a  moderate  but  permanent  protection  insured  to  them. 
He  knew  not  how  that  object  could  be  better  effected  than  by 
the  scheme  of  establishing  a  new  tariff  of  duties,  which  this  House 
had  shown  a  determination  to  adopt.  To  continue  the  present 
non-importation  system  merely  to  protect  manufactures,  when 
they  received  already  so  much  protection,  would  be  dangerous 
instead  of  beneficial  to  them.38 

Such  were  the  opinions  upon  this  subject  expressed  by  Cal- 
houn  during  the  latter  part  of  the  war.  The  legislative  result 
was  .that  the  restrictive  system  was  swept  away  and  the  new 
manufacturing  establishments  in  the  country ~IeffTo  the  rates 
of  protection  indicated  in  Calhoun's  speech  above,  including 
that  incident  to  the  regulation  of  foreign  vessels  trading  from 
our  ports.  A  hope  was  held  out,  too,  of  a  general  tariff  bill 
from  the  next  Congress. 

The  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain,  concluded  Decem- 
ber 24,  1814,  became  generally,  as  well  as  officially,  known  in 
Washington  on  Tuesday,  February  14,  1815,  and  had  been 
generally  rumored  the  day  before.37  It  was  beyond  doubt 
even  a  greater  relief  to  the  public  men  in  charge  of  govern- 
ment than  to  the  citizens  at  large.  That  it  had  come  to  us 
after  many  a  disaster,  as  well  as  some  few  great  triumphs, 
may  be  freely  admitted.  None  the  less,  the  triumphs  were  of 
a  character  deeply  to  inspire  the  young  nation,  which  had 

36  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,   1813-14,  Second  Session, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  1983,  1984,  1089,  1990. 

37  See  ante,  pp.  167,  168. 


1 72  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

with  such  splendid  audacity  thrown  down  the  gauntlet  of  chal- 
lenge to  the  giant  power  of  England.  Nor  was  it  the  only 
boon  of  about  that  same  date.  Barely  ten  days  earlier,  knowl- 
edge of  Jackson's  overwhelming  victory  at  New  Orleans  had 
first  come  through  snow  and  ice,  and  varying  rumors  of  dis- 
aster to  the  ears  of  our  people  breathless  with  suspense,  and 
every  American  had  felt  his  heart  thrill  with  that  pride  which 
led  Clay,  far  away  in  Paris,  to  break  out :  "  Now  I  can  go  to 
England  without  mortification. " 

It  was  indeed  an  intoxicating  moment,  and  many  a  flight  of 
per-fervid  eloquence  was  indulged  in  among  us,  but  the  only 
slight  ebullition  of  the  kind  on  Calhoun's  part  which  I  have 
found  is  contained  in  his  words :  38  "I  feel  pleasure  and  pride 
in  being  able  to  say  that  I  am  of  a  party  which  drew  the  sword 
on  this  question,  and  succeeded  in  the  contest ;  for,  to  all  prac- 
tical purposes,  we  have  achieved  complete  success." 

The  war  left  its  deep  impress  on  him  as  on  so  many  of  his 
countrymen  and  was  a  potent  factor  in  ending  our  minority 
and  welding  us  into  one  nation.  Its  influence  in  this  direction 
was  beyond  doubt  the  main  cause  which  led  him  to  urge  in 
1816  our  complete  freedom  from  the  leading-strings  of  the 
former  mother-country.  "  Much  anxiety,"  he  said,  "  has  re- 
cently been  evinced  to  be  independent  of  English  broad-cloths 
and  muslins.  He  hoped  it  indicated  the  approach  of  a  period 
when  we  should  also  throw  off  the  thraldom  of  thought."  39 

The  Third  Session  of  the  Thirteenth  Congress  adjourned 
sine  die  on  March  4,  1815,  and  Calhoun  then  went  South  to 
be  with  his  family  for  a  time  and  look  after  home  interests. 
He  reached  Bath  on  March  2oth,  and  within  three  weeks  had 
the  misfortune  to  lose  the  only  daughter  he  then  had,  Floride 
by  name,  a  child  of  over  a  year,  She  was  "  in  the  bloom  of 
health  "  one  morning  and  was  dead  the  next  day.  The  ap- 
palling suddenness  of  the  loss  was  a  fearful  blow  to  him,  as 
well  as  to  the  bereaved  mother,  and  his  efforts  to  console  the 
latter  were  quite  without  success.  As  indicating  the  tendency, 
of  his  mind  at  this  time  to  find  the  hand  of  the  Deity  person- 

88  Annals  of   Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,   Third   Session,    1814-15, 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  1246. 

89  Ibid.,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16,  p.  532. 


ACTIVITIES  IN  CONGRESS  173 

ally  directing  his  affairs  and  his  apparent  reliance  upon  the 
stock  consolations  of  the  pastorate,  the  following  from  his  let- 
ter 40  to  his  mother-in-law  should  be  reproduced : 

So  fixed  in  sorrow  is  her  distressed  mother  that  every  topick 
of  consolation,  which  I  attempt  to  offer  but  seems  to  grieve  her 
the  more.  It  is  in  vain  I  tell  her  it  is  the  lot  of  humanity ;  that 
almost  all  parents  have  suffered  equal  calamity;  that  Providence 
may  have  intended  it  in  kindness  to  her  and  ourselves,  as  no 
one  can  say  what,  had  she  lived,  would  have  been  her  condition, 
whether  it  would  have  been  happy  or  miserable;  and  above  all 
we  have  the  consolation  to  know  that  she  is  far  more  happy  than 
she  could  be  here  with  us. 

Many  have  perhaps  found  consolation  in  such  a  trite  phi-    I 
losophy  of  human  affairs,  but  surely  to  a  mother's  heart  rent 
in  twain  the  words  might  well  seem  merely  vapid  and  cruel. 

40  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp.  128,  129. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS 

Circumstances  of  the  Day  —  The  Tariff  of  1816  —  Second 
Bank  Established  —  The  Salary  Bill  —  Internal  Improve- 
ments —  Calhoun's  Early  Views. 

THE  First  Session  of  the  Fourteenth  Congress  was  to  meet 
at  the  usual  time  in  December  of  1815,  and  Calhoun  arrived 
in  Washington  on  the  28th  of  November,  having  "  performed 
the  journey  in  a  shorter  time  than  what  I  expected  by  several 
days/'  as  he  wrote  his  wife  on  the  29th.  At  Raleigh  he  had 
met  John  Taylor  of  South  Carolina  and  made  the  journey 
with  him  the  rest  of  the  way.  He  adds  that  "  the  last  53  miles 
is  performed  by  a  steamboat ;  nothing  can  be  superior  to  that 
mode  of  conveyance  whether  we  regard  the  safety,  ease  or 
expedition  of  traveling.  You  are  moved  on  rapidly  without 
being  sensible  of  it.  I  hope  by  another  session  there  will  be 
one  from  Charleston  to  the  place." 

The  House  convened  on  December  4th  and  upon  that  day 
Calhoun  took  his  seat.  On  the  6th,  in  accordance  with  custom, 
various  parts  of  the  message  were  referred  to  special  com- 
mittees, and  Calhoun  was  named  Chairman  of  that  on  Uni- 
form National  Currency.  This  was  of  course,  as  the  "Auto- 
biography "  says,  owing  to  his  prominence  on  the  bank  ques- 
tion in  the  prior  Congress;  and  it  may  be  surmised  that  the 
power  he  had  shown  at  that  time  compelled  his  selection.  He 
was  also  third  on  a  Committee  in  regard  to  a  National  Semin- 
ary of  Learning  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  but  I  have  not 
found  that  he  took  any  part  in  the  work  of  this  committee. 
Wilde  of  Georgia  was  its  chairman. 

As  the  tariff  was  under  discussion  but  a  few  pages  back,  it 
will  be  best  to  take  that  subject  up  first  and  thus  place  close 
together  all  the  material  bearing  upon  the  course  of  Calhoun 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  175 

on  one  leading  branch  of  our  policy  during  the  early  years  of 
his  public  life.  He  has  always  been  charged,  since  his  death 
as  well  as  before,  with  grave  inconsistency  upon  this  subject 
as  well  as  others  at  different  periods  of  his  career,  and  the 
whole  question  had  best  be  gone  into  here.  The  record  shows 
beyond_peradyenture  that  at  this  time  he  advocated  protection 
to  manufacTures  in  repeated  speeches  and  votes.  But  it  would 
be  very  unjust  to  let  the  matter  stand  upon  these  actions  alone, 
without  regard  to  the  circumstances  surrounding  him,  and 
which  made  the  question  look  so  different  from  what  it  does 
now  or  even  did  a  decade  and  a  half  after  the  speeches  were 
made.  Let  us  try  to  realize  what  those  circumstances  were. 

Calhoun  began  public  life  with  the  inception  of  a  war,  which 
he  had  aided  to  bring  about,  and  no  man  exists  who  would  not 
unconsciously  have  his  principles  of  government  warped  by 
the  necessities  of  his  country's  circumstances  at  such  a  moment. 
It  was  inevitable  that  the  sphere  of  federal  functions,  as  defined 
by  the  Constitution,  should  grow  in  his  eyes.  Again,  when 
the  war  was  over,  the  financial  system  was  chaos,  the  govern- 
ment hardly  able  to  pay  its  daily  debts,  and  citizens,  who  had 
risked  their  fortunes  in  manufacturing  plants  during  the  abso- 
lute closure  of  our  ports  by  war,  were  faced  with  bankruptcy, 
unless  the  government  should  aid  them  by  keeping  our  ports 
still  to  some  extent  closed  against  the  competition  of  long- 
established  foreign  goods.  Surely  the  inducements  to  estab- 
lish the  system  of  protection,  a  national  bank,  and  other 
measures  apparently  necessary  to  save  the  country  from  ruin 
were  strong  enough  to  induce  even  the  most  sturdy  believer  in  . 
State  Rights  to  yield  a  good  deal, —  and  I  know  of  no  evidence/ 
that  Calhoun  had  at  this  time  paid  much  attention  to  the  teach-' 
ings  of  that  school. 

In  our  early  days,  moreover,  the  very  existence  of  the  new 
nation,  known  as  the  United  States,  was  problematical. 
Causes  within  ourselves  might  well  have  cut  short  our  career, 
and  foreign  powers  looked  upon  us  with  a  distrust  quite  capa- 
ble of  leading  to  some  more  or  less  successful  effort  to  stunt 
our  growth,  if  not  to  destroy  us.  The  War  of  1812, —  the 
Second  War  of  Independence,  as  Calhoun  and  other  war- 


i;6  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C,  CALHOUN 

hawks  often  called  it,  —  showed  that  we  were  not  to  be  de- 
spised, when  aroused,  but  showed  also  to  those  behind  the 
scenes  the  awful  inefficiency  of  our  administrative  system. 
The  inherent  capabilities  of  the  people  alone  enabled  us  then 
to  accomplish  anything.  The  few  splendid  triumphs  we  won 
were  due  but  little  to  government,  —  almost  entirely  to  the 
bravery  and  fiery  energy  of  some  independent  command,  too 
far  away  to  be  hampered  by  the  timid  counsels  and  halting 
methods  prevailing  at  Washington. 

When  that  war  came  to  an  end,  too,  and  when  shortly  after- 
ward Napoleon  was  finally  overthrown,  the  crowned  heads  of 
Europe  soon  formed  the  Holy  Alliance,  with  the  view  of 
united  action  to  prevent  the  spread  of  those  popular  principles 
which  had  been  so  prominent  a  feature  in  our  career,  as  well 
as  in  the  French  Revolution  and  in  Bonaparte's  earlier  public 
actions.  One  of  the  powers  concerned  hoped  to  turn  this 
device  into  a  means  of  preventing  the  successful  revolt  of  her 
wide-spread  American  possessions,  and  here  was  a  means  by 
which  we  might  easily  have  become  involved  in  some  contest 
with  the  united  powers  of  Europe.  These  powers  may  be 
said  to  have  been  the  civilized  world,  for  even  England,  while 
declining  formally  to  join  the  Alliance,  did  not  at  first  offer 
any  real  resistance  to  its  policy.  Here  was  a  terrible  menace 
to  us,  and  no  wonder  that  some  of  our  public  men  were  deeply 
impressed  by  these  dangers  and  wanted  to  prepare  to  meet 
them  by  developing  our  strength. 

Add  to  this  the  tangible  and  so  vital  fact  already  mentioned, 
—  that  after  our  war  manufacturing  establishments  in  some 
numbers  existed  in  parts  of  the  country,  and  what  was  the 
public  man  to  do,  who  was  impressed  with  the  dangers  from 
without  and  had  supported  the  very  measures,  —  the  restrictive 
system,  the^ar^-tke-b-jgher  duties  of  thattime,  —  ~w 


^ 

led  to  the  growth  of  those  manufactures  so  useful  to  us  during 
the  war?  This  was  the  question  presented  to  Calhoun's  mind 
at  the  period  of  his  career  we  have  reached.  How  could  the 
views  of  a  man  with  such  a  history,  and  who  was  himself 
deeply  impressed  with  the  dangers  to  our  country  from  with- 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  177 

out,1  fail  to  be  profoundly  influenced  by  all  these  circumstances 
in  which  he  had  lived  ? 

It  ought,  then,  to  surprise  no  one,  and  is  at  least  plain  be- 
yond peradventure,  that  in  his  early  years  Calhoun  was  in  favor 
of  a  rather  splendid  government  and  of  liberal  expenditures  in 
every  direction  that  he  thought  likely  to  increase  our  strength    ) 
and  to  knit  our  several  peoples, —  for  such  they  were, —  into 
one  strong  and  solidly  united  nation.     The  tariff,  the  bank,    ' 
internal  improvements,  a  navy  of  considerable  strength,  an    , 
army  such  as  could  be  rapidly  turned  into  a  formidable  engine, 
—  all  had  his  decided  support. 

These  measures  were,  moreover,  all  dovetailed  together  and 
went  to  form  one  harmonious  whole.  The  debt  could  not  be 
gradually  paid,  nor  could  the  powerful  government  be  main- 
tained without  liberal  expenditures,  and  hence  taxation  in 
some  form  was  vitally  necessary.  The  tariff  was  intended 
on  all  hands,  then  as  now,  to  be  a  chief  source  of  our  income, 
and  the  discussions  of  it  by  Calhoun  are  all  largely  colored  by 
this  view.  The  doctrine  of  protection  in  the  modern  sense  had 
not  then  taken  its  place  in  the  public  affairs  of  the  country, 
and  no  one  even  proposed  a  law,  whose  only  or  main  purpose 
was  "  to  foster  our  infant  industries."  At  the  same  time,  ( 
there  can,  in  my  opinion,  be  no  doubt  whatsoever  that  at  this 
date  Calhoun  was  largely  influenced  in  all  he  did  or  said  upon 
the  subject  by  the  desire  so  to  arrange  the  laws  as  to  exclude 
from  our  markets  foreign  goods  likely  to  compete  with  the 
domestic  manufactures  which  had  grown  up  during  the  war, 
and  thus  to  protect  the  home-made  article  and  the  manufac- 
turer. 

Nor  does  the  record  of  his  speeches  admit  of  the  view  that 
he  was  guided  exclusively  by  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
largest  income,  without  regard  to  saving  the  manufacturers 
from  foreign  competition.  As  far  as  I  can  judge  him,  his 
motives  in  fixing  the  rates  were  two :  one, —  possibly  the  main 
one, —  to  secure  income,  the  other  to  protect  our  new  manu- 

1  The  "  Autobiography,"  p.  20,  tells  us  that  this  was  the  case,  and  Cal=~  ' 
houn's  speeches  show  the  same  thing.  See,  also,  his  "  Correspondence,"  . 
pp.  218,  219. 


178  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

factures.  And  this  second  motive  seems  to  me  to  have  been 
as  much  a  substantive  one  with  him  as  the  first.  It  certainly 
cannot  be  hidden  away  under  the  cloak  of  "  incidental "  pro- 
tection, and  indeed  in  1833  he  admitted  2  that  the  protective 
principle  was  recognized  by  the  Act  of  1816. 

We  may  fairly  assume  that  his  views  had  been  influenced 
by  the  growth  of  protection  sentiment  in  his  home  state  at 
about  this  period,3  and  it  is  plainly  evident  that  the  Republican 
party  had  to  some  extent  come  under  the  same  influence.  As 
early  as  1792,  there  was  an  effort  made  in  Congress  to  secure 
protection  for  cotton,  and  even  Macon  advocated  this  measure. 
Again,  two  years  later,  both  Jefferson  and  Madison  were  con- 
cerned in  proceedings  looking  generally  towards  protection, 
and  once  more  in  1809  some  Republicans  sought  to  extend  the 
then  existing  system.  These  efforts  failed;  but  they  serve 
well  to  show  the  existence  of  the  sentiment.4  By  1815,  too,  it 
had  grown  to  such  an  extent  that  Madison  wrote  in  his  Message 
of  December  5,  at  the  opening  of  the  First  Session  of  the 
Fourteenth  Congress,  "  In  adjusting  the  duties  on  imports  to 

2  In  his  speech  on  the  Force  Bill  in  the  Senate  on  February  15-16,  1833, 
he  said  of  the  Act  of  1816 :     "  It  introduced,  besides,  the  obnoxious  mini- 
mum principle,  which  has  since  been  so  mischievously  extended;  and  to 
that  extent,   I  am  constrained  in  candor  to  acknowledge,  as  I  wish  to 
disguise  nothing,  the  protective  principle  was  recognized  by  the  act  of 
1816.    How  this  was  overlooked  at  the  time,  it  is  not  in  my  power  to  say. 
It  escaped  my  observation,  which  I  can  account  for  only  on  the  ground 
that  the  principle  was  then  new,  and  that  my  attention  was  engaged  by 
another   important   subject  —  the   question   of   the   currency."    "Works," 
Vol.  II,  p.  206.     It  will  shortly  be  shown  (infra.,  pp.  183-186),  that  Calhoun 
spoke  in  favor  of  the  minimum,  and  against  Randolph's  motion  to  strike 
the  provision  out,   during  the  debates  on  the  Act  of   1816.    The  most 
undeniable   advocacy   of   protection   by  him   that   I   have   found   is   con- 
tained in  his  speech  of   April  6,   1814    (quoted   in  part  supra,  p.    170), 

(  on  the  repeal  of  the  embargo,  when  he  said  ("Works,"  Vol.  II,  103-110), 
"  As  to  the  manufacturing  interest,  in  regard  to  which  some  fears  have 

•  been  expressed,  the  resolution  voted  by  the  House  yesterday  [on  Ingham's 
motion,  directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  prepare  a  tariff  bill], 
is  a  strong  pledge  that  it  will  not  suffer  the  manufacturers  to  be  un- 
protected, in  case  of  a  repeal  of  the  restrictive  system.  I  hope  that  at 
all  times  and  under  every  policy,  they  will  be  protected  with  due  care." 

3  See  post,  pp.  189-191. 

*  Wm.  E.  Dodd's  "  Nathaniel  Macon,"  pp.  66,  67  citing  Annals  of  Con- 
gress, Second  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  560;  Ibid.,  pp.  246,  247,  citing 
Annals  of  Congress,  Eleventh  Congress,  Vol.  I,  pp.  182-186;  Taussig's 
"Tariff  History"  (1888),  p.  14,  citing  Jefferson's  Report  on  Commerce, 
'Works,"  Vol.  VII,  p.  637,  and  Madison's  Resolutions,  Annals  of  Con- 
gress, 1794,  pp.  155,  209. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  179 

the  object  of  revenue,  the  influence  of  the  tariff  on  manufac- 
tures will  necessarily  present  itself  for  consideration.  .  .  . 
Under  circumstances  giving  a  powerful  impulse  to  manufac- 
turing industry,  it  has  made  among  us  a  progress,  and  ex- 
hibited an  efficiency,  which  justify  the  belief  that,  with  a  pro- 
tection not  more  than  is  due  to  the  enterprising  citizens,  whose 
interests  are  now  at  stake,  it  will  become,  at  an  early  day,  not 
only  safe  against  occasional  competitions  from  abroad,  but  a 
source  of  domestic  wealth,  and  even  of  external  commerce." 

It  may  almost  be  said  that  every  one  of  the  speeches  of  Cal-  I 
houn  at  this  early  period  shows  his  desire  to  increase  the) 
strength  of  the  United  States  Government  and  to  render  usj 
in  a  high  degree  capable  of  taking  care  of  ourselves.     The  | 
best  way  to  enable  the  reader  to  form  an  independent  judg- 
ment upon  this  point  will  be  to  extract  to  a  considerable  extent 
from  the  speeches  in  question.     In  so  doing,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  introduce  several  subjects  other  than  the  one  of  the 
tariff  now  mainly  in  view,  for  in  this  one  particular  they  are 
all  similar. 

Thus,  early  in  January,  1816,  upon  a  bill  to  establish  three 
additional  Military  Academies,  he  said  5  that  the  object  of  the 
bill  was  "  to  contribute  to  the  national  security,  by  the  diffu- 
sion of  military  knowledge,"  and  that  the  only  question  was 
as  to  the  best  mode  to  produce  a  national  spirit.  He  hoped 
"  it  would  not  be  long  before  we  should  have  one  [Military 
Academy]  in  every  considerable  state  of  the  Union.  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  compared  the  feelings  of  this  House  now  and  previous 
to  the  war.  Now,  he  said,  we  see  everywhere  a  nationality  of 
feeling;  we  hear  sentiments  from  every  part  of  the  House  in 
favor  of  Union,  and  against  a  sectional  spirit.  What  had 
produced  this  change?  The  glory  acquired  by  the  late  war, 
and  the  prosperity  which  had  followed  it.  ...  He  believed 
the  provisions  of  this  bill  were  more  important  than  any  yet 
on  the  table  of  the  House,  and  as  important  as  any  that  would 
come  before  the  House  at  the  present  session." 

During  the  same  First  Session  of  the  Fourteenth  Congress, 

5  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16,  pp. 
430,  431- 


180  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

another  South  Carolinian,  Lowndes,  was  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  to  which  fell  in  the  main  ques- 
tions of  the  tariff  and  revenue  generally.  On  January  9,  1816, 
he  reported  a  bill  to  make  certain  reductions  in  the  revenue, 
and  in  the  debate  members  were  urgent  to  cut  off  still  further 
sources  of  income.  This  was  very  far  from  Calhoun's  wishes, 
and  his  speech  upon  the  subject  will  serve  to  show  how  deeply 
his  mind  was  then  impressed  with  the  absolute  necessity  of 
large  governmental  expenditures.  "  If  gentlemen,"  he  said,8 
"  were  of  opinion  that  our  navy  ought  not  to  be  improved ; 
that  internal  improvements  should  not  be  prosecuted;  if  these 
were  their  sentiments,  they  were  right  in  desiring  to  abolish  all 
taxes.  If  they  thought  otherwise,  it  was  absurd,  it  was  pre- 
posterous to  say,  that  we  should  not  lay  taxes  on  the  people. 
Mr.  Calhoun  said  gentlemen  ought  not  to  give  into  the  con- 
tracted idea  that  taxes  were  so  much  money  taken  from  the 
people;  properly  applied,  the  money  proceeding  from  taxes 
was  money  put  out  to  the  best  possible  interest  for  the  people. 
He  wished,  he  said,  to  see  the  nation  free  from  external  dan- 
gers and  internal  difficulty.  .  .  .  The  broad  question  was  now 
before  the  House,  whether  this  Government  should  act  on  an 
enlarged  policy;  whether  it  would  avail  itself  of  the  experi- 
ence of  the  last  war;  whether  it  would  be  benefited  by  the 
mass  of  knowledge  acquired  within  the  few  last  years;  or 
whether  we  should  go  on  in  the  old  imbecile  mode,  contributing 
by  our  measures  nothing  to  the  honor,  nothing  to  the  reputa- 
tion of  the  country." 

Again,  a  few  days  later,  he  spoke  upon  the  same  general 
subject  as  follows :  7  "  I  am  sure  that  future  wars  with  Eng- 
land are  not  only  possible,  but  I  will  say  more,  that  they  are 
highly  probable  —  nay,  that  they  will  certainly  take  place. 
Future  wars,  I  fear,  with  the  honorable  Speaker,  future  wars, 
long  and  bloody,  will  exist  between  this  country  and  Great 
Britain  —  I  lament  it  —  but  I  will  not  close  my  eyes  on  events 
—  I  will  speak  what  I  believe  to  be  true." 

He  then  went  on  to  express  his  reliance  upon  the  Navy  and 

«  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16,  pp. 
720,  729- 
7  Ibid.,  pp.  829-40. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  181 

wanted  largely  to  put  our  strength  into  it.  He  would  also  arm 
the  militia,  extend  their  term  of  service  and  in  general  increase 
their  efficiency.  He  knew  the  danger  of  large  standing  armies, 
and  looked  upon  the  militia  as  the  true  force,  "  but  they  are 
not,"  he  added,  "  a  safe  defence  without  making  their  efficiency 
greater." 

"  Your  defence/'  he  went  on,  "  ought  to  depend  on  the  land, 
on  a  regular  draught  from  the  body  of  the  people."  .  .  .  MrJ 
Calhoun  then  proceeded  to  a  point  of  less  but  yet  of  great  im- 
portance,—  he  meant  the  establishment  of  roads  and  opening 
of  canals  in  various  parts  of  the  country.  ..."  Your  popu- 
lation is  widely  dispersed.  .  .  .  We  ought  to  contribute  as 
much  as  possible  to  the  formation  of  good  military  roads,  not 
only  on  the  score  of  general  political  economy,  but  to  enable 
us  on  emergencies  to  collect  the  whole  mass  of  our  military 
means  on  the  point  menaced."  .  .  . 

Mr.  Calhoun  proceeded  to  another  topic,  the  encouragement 
proper  to  be  afforded  to  the  industry  of  the  country.  In  re- 
gard to  the  question  how  far  manufacturers  ought  to  be  fos- 
tered, Mr.  Calhoun  said  it  was  the  duty  of  this  country,  as  a 
means  of  defence,  to  encourage  the  domestic  industry  of  the 
country;  more  especially  that  part  of  it  which  provides  the 
necessary  materials  for  clothing  and  defence.  ..."  I  lay  the 
claims  of  the  manufacturers  entirely  out  of  view,"  said  Mr. 
Calhoun,  "  but  on  general  principles,  without  regard  to  their 
interest,  a  certain  encouragement  should  be  extended,  at  least, 
to  our  woolen  and  cotton  manufactures." 

"  This  nation,"  such  was  his  peroration,  "  is  in  a  situation 
similar  to  that  which  one  of  the  most  beautiful  writers  of  an- 
tiquity paints  Hercules  in  his  youth.  He  represents  the  hero 
as  retiring  into  the  wilderness  to  deliberate  on  the  course  of 
life  which  he  ought  to  pursue.  Two  Goddesses  approach  him : 
one  recommended  to  him  a  life  of  ease  and  pleasure:  the  other 
of  labor  and  virtue.  The  hero  adopted  the  counsel  of  the  lat- 
ter, and  his  fame  and  glory  are  known  to  the  world.  May  this 
nation,  the  youthful  Hercules,  possessing  his  form  and  muscles, 
be  inspired  with  similar  sentiments  and  follow  his  example." 

Even  more  remarkable  were  some  other  views  in  regard  to 


1 82  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  general  nature  of  our  government  which  he  held  at  about 
this  date  and  for  a  number  of  years.     Thus,  in   1813,  he 

wrote:  8* 

<•»•** 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  Union  performs  the  highest  func- 
tions under  our  system.  It  is  the  mediator  between  sovereigns, 
the  State  and  General  Governments,  and  the  actual  line,  which 
separates  their  authority,  must  be  drawn  by  this  high  tribunal. 

«*•»» 

Again,  we  are  told,9  that  in  1824-25,  at  an  evening  party, 
to  which  he  had  asked  J.  A.  Hamilton,  Alexander  Hamilton's 
son,  Calhoun  expressed  admiration  for  his  guest's  father  and 
then  went  on : 

"  Sir,  I  have  a  clear  conviction  after  much  reflection  and  an 
entire  knowledge  and  familiarity  with  the  history  of  our  coun- 
try and  the  working  of  our  Government,  that  his  policy  as  de- 
veloped by  the  measures  of  Washington's  administration,  is 
the  only  true  policy  for  the  country." 

Small  wonder  that  later,  when  his  opinions  had  so  greatly 
changed,  his  early  views  were  quoted  at  times  against  him.10 

Some  of  the  speeches,  which  have  been  quoted,  show  well 
how  remarkably  free  the  young  Calhoun  was  from  that  special 
devotion  to  the  interests  of  his  own  section  which  often  guided 
his  actions  in  later  life.  A  very  broad  nationalism  was  then, 
—  as  well  as  for  a  number  of  years  afterwards, —  most  con- 
spicuous in  his  character,  and  the  special  interests  of  his  quar- 
ter of  the  Union  carried  but  little  weight.  This  will  appear 
more  than  once  hereafter  and  seems  to  have  been  recognized  n 
at  the  time;  but  one  instance  is  so  striking  that  it  ought  to  be 
specially  mentioned. 

In  December,  1814,  a  measure  was  pending  in  the  House  to 
draft  some  80,000  militia,  and  Macon  had  offered  an  amend- 
ment to  change  the  apportionment  of  the  draft  among  the 

8  Letter  of  June   n,   1823,  to  Virgil  Maxcy  contained  in  the  Maxcy- 
Markoe  Collection  in  Library  of  Congress. 

9  J.    A.    Hamilton's    "  Reminiscences,"    p.    62.     Hamilton    thought    that 
Calhoun,  then  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  expected  him  to  communi- 
cate these  views  to  his  Federal  friends. 

10  See  e.  g.  "  The  Charleston  Courier  "  of  1829-30,  passim. 

11  See  speech  of  Grosvenor  quoted  post,  p.  219. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  183 

States,  so  as  to  base  it  on  "  the  military  strength  "  (i.e.  the 
free  white  population),  instead  of  on  the  basis  of  federal 
representation,  as  the  bill  provided.  Under  the  latter  provi- 
sion, the  South's  quota  would  have  been  very  much  larger  of 
course,  for  three-fifths  of  the  negroes  would  have  been  counted 
in  ascertaining  it.  Calhoun  not  only  voted  against  Macon's 
amendment  (which  was  defeated)  but  spoke  against  it  on  the 
floor  and  said  "  he  should  vote  for  this  provision  of  the  bill  as 
it  now  stands,  upon  the  ground  of  liberality  and  generosity; 
that,  as  the  Southern  States  had  a  considerable  agency  in  the 
declaration  of  war  and  bringing  about  the  present  state  of 
things,  he  is  willing  to  take  hold  of  the  laboring  oar."  12 

Such  were  some  of  Calhoun's  views  upon  questions  of 
national  power  and  functions  in  his  early  years.  The  same 
general  opinions  came  out,  too,  during  the  debates  upon  the 
tariff  and  particularly  upon  the  bills  of  1816,  to  which  we 
must  now  more  directly  turn  our  attention.  While  this  meas- 
ure was  under  discussion,  Huger  of  South  Carolina  moved  to 
reduce  the  duties  on  sugar,  but  Lowndes  from  the  same  State 
was  against  the  motion  and  "  argued  that  the  manufacture  of 
sugar  demanded  encouragement  as  strongly  as  any  other." 
Calhoun,  too,  opposed  the  motion  and  "  dwelt13  on  the  great 
importance  of  the  article,  and  the  expediency  of  encouraging 
its  production  in  our  own  country,  by  which  our  supplies  would 
be  so  much  more  certain;  and  he  enforced  particularly  the 
necessity  of  encouraging  all  those  articles  at  home,  for  which 
we  now  depended  on  the  W.  Indies,  to  which  our  trade  was 
so  precarious  that  a  proclamation  from  the  Governor  of  an 
island  might  any  moment  cut  it  off." 

But  his  chief  speech  upon  the  tariff  bill  was  made  in  oppo- 
sition  to  a  motion  of  John  Randolph  to  strike  out  so  much  of 
the  proviso  to  the  second  section  as  fixed  the  minimum  price 
of  cotton  goods  (except  nankeens  direct  from  China)  at  25 

12  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Third  Session,  1814-15, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  881,  882.  Calhoun's  speech  is  not  given  in  the  Annals,  but 
is  quoted  as  above  by  Kennedy  of  North  Carolina,  who  was  very  far 
from  sympathizing  with  Calhoun's  view  of  the  matter. 

J3  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16, 
p.  1262. 


184  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

cents  per  square  yard.     In  opposition  to  this  motion,  he  spoke 
as  follows  on  April  4,  1816: 14 

The  debate  heretofore  on  this  subject  has  been  on  the  degree 
of  protection  which  ought  to  be  afforded  to  our  cotton  and 
woollen  manufactures;  all  professing  to  be  friendly  to  those  in- 
fant establishments,  and  to  be  willing  to  extend  to  them  adequate 
encouragement.  The  present  motion  assumes  a  new  aspect.  It 
is  introduced  professedly  on  the  ground  that  manufactures  ought 
not  to  receive  any  encouragement,  and  will,  in  its  operation,  leave 
our  cotton  establishments  exposed  to  the  competition  of  the 
cotton  goods  of  the  E.  Indies,  which,  it  is  acknowledged  on  all 
sides,  they  are  not  capable  of  meeting  with  success,  without  the 
proviso  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  by  the  motion  now  under 
discussion.  Until  the  debate  assumed  this  new  form,  he  had 
determined  to  be  silent;  participating,  as  he  largely  did,  in  that 
general  anxiety  which  is  felt,  after  so  long  and  laborious  a  ses- 
sion, to  return  to  the  bosom  of  our  families.  .  .  .  He  was  no 
manufacturer ;  he  was  not  from  that  portion  of  our  country  sup- 
posed to  be  peculiarly  interested.  Coming,  as  he  did,  from  the 
South,  having,  in  common  with  his  immediate  constituents,  no 
interest  but  in  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  in  selling  its  products 
high,  and  buying  cheap  the  wants  and  conveniences  of  life,  no 
motive  could  be  attributed  to  him  but  such  as  were  disinterested. 

He  had  asserted  that  the  subject  before  them  was  connected 
with  the  security  of  the  country.  [After  arguing  that  the  proper 
development  of  agriculture,  commerce  and  manufactures  was 
necessary  to  the  production  of  wealth  and  referring  to  the  man- 
ner in  which  our  currency  and  finance  had  broken  down  in  the 
war.]  .  .  .  But  what,  he  asked,  is  more  necessary  to  the  defence 
of  a  country  than  its  currency  and  finance?  Circumstanced  as 
our  country  is,  can  these  stand  the  shock  of  war?  Behold  the 
effect  of  the  late  war  on  them!  When  our  manufactures  are 
grown  to  a  certain  perfection,  as  they  soon  will  under  the  fos- 
tering care  of  Government,  we  will  no  longer  experience  these 

14  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16, 
pp.  1329-36.  Calhoun  said  in  his  speech  on  the  Force  Bill  on  February 
15  and  16,  1833,  that  this  tariff  speech  was  entirely  impromptu  and  had  been 
made  upon  the  request  of  Ingham,  who  thought  the  House  was  falling 
into  confusion.  Calhoun  had  replied :  "  I  was  at  a  loss  what  to  say,  that 
I  had  been  busily  engaged  on  the  currency  .  .  .  which  .  .  .  had  been 
placed  particularly  under  my  charge,"  but  upon  Ingham's  repeating  his 
request  had  made  the  speech.  "  Works,"  II,  pp.  208,  209 :  see  also  "  Corre- 
spondence," p.  305. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  185 

evils.  To  give  perfection  to  this  state  of  things,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  add,  as  soon  as  possible,  a  system  of  internal  improve- 
ments, and  at  least  such  an  extension  of  our  navy  as  will  prevent 
the  cutting  off  of  our  coasting  trade.  To  this  distressing  state 
of  things,  there  were  two  remedies  and  only  two:  ...  he  meant 
the  Navy  and  domestic  manufactures.  By  the  former,  we  could 
open  the  way  to  our  markets ;  by  the  latter,  we  bring  them  from 
beyond  the  ocean  and  naturalize  them.  .  .  .  Besides,  we  have 
already  surmounted  the  greatest  difficulty  that  has  ever  been 
found  in  undertakings  of  this  kind.  The  cotton  and  woollen 
manufactures  are  not  to  be  introduced  —  they  are  already  intro- 
duced to  a  great  extent;  freeing  us  entirely  from  the  hazards 
and,  in  a  great  measure,  the  sacrifices  experienced  in  giving  the 
capital  of  the  country  a  new  direction.  The  restrictive  meas- 
ures and  the  war,  though  not  intended  for  the  purpose,  have,  by 
the  necessary  operation  of  things,  turned  a  large  amount  of 
capital  to  this  new  branch  of  industry.  He  had  often  heard  it 
said,  both  in  and  out  of  Congress,  that  this  effect  alone  would 
indemnify  the  country  for  all  of  its  losses.  So  high  was  this 
tone  of  feeling,  when  the  want  of  these  establishments  were 
[sic]  practically  felt,  that  he  remembered  during  the  war,  when 
some  question  was  agitated  respecting  the  introduction  of  foreign 
goods,  that  many  then  opposed  it  on  the  ground  of  injuring  our 
manufactures.  He  then  said  that  war  alone  furnished  sufficient 
stimulus,  and  perhaps  too  much,  as  it  would  make  their  growth 
unnaturally  rapid ;  but  that  on  the  return  of  peace,  it  would  then 
be  time  to  show  our  affection  for  them.  He  at  that  time  did 
not  expect  an  apathy  and  aversion  to  the  extent  which  is  now 
seen.  But  it  will  no  doubt  be  said,  if  they  are  so  far  estab- 
lished and  if  the  situation  of  the  country  is  so  favorable  to  their 
growth,  where  is  the  necessity  for  protection?  It  is  to  put  them 
beyond  the  reach  of  contingency.  .  .  .  Afford  to  ingenuity  and 
industry  immediate  and  ample  protection,  and  they  will  not  fail 
to  give  a  preference  to  this  free  and  happy  country.  ...  It  has 
been  further  asserted  that  manufactures  are  the  fruitful  cause 
of  pauperism,  and  England  has  been  referred  to  as  furnishing 
evidence  of  its  truth.  For  his  part,  he  could  perceive  no  such 
tendency  in  them,  but  the  exact  contrary,  as  they  furnished 
new  stimulus  and  means  of  subsistence  to  the  working  classes  of 
the  community.  [The  causes  of  the  troubles  referred  to  in 
England  were  the  poor  laws,  those  regulating  the  price  of  labor, 


186  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

and  the  heavy  taxes.]  ...  It  [the  system  of  manufactures]  pro- 
duced an  interest  strictly  American,  as  much  so  as  agriculture; 
in  which  it  had  the  decided  advantage  of  commerce  or  naviga- 
tion. The  country  will  from  this  derive  much  advantage. 
Again,  it  is  calculated  to  bind  together  more  closely  our  widely- 
spread  Republic.  It  will  greatly  increase  our  mutual  depend- 
ence and  intercourse;  and  will,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  ex- 
cite an  increased  attention  to  internal  improvement  —  a  subject 
every  way  so  intimately  connected  with  the  ultimate  attainment 
of  national  strength,  and  the  perfection  of  our  political  institu- 
tions. He  regarded  the  fact  that  it  would  make  the  parts  adhere 
more  closely;  that  it  would  form  a  new  and  most  powerful 
cement  [as]  far  outweighing  any  political  objections  that  might 
be  urged  against  the  system.  QJI  his  opinion,  the  liberty  and  the 
union  of  the  country  were  inseparably  unitecT)  That  as  the  de- 
struction of  the  latter  would  most  certainly  involve  the  former, 
so  its  maintenance  would  with  equal  certainty  preserve  it.  ... 
The  basis  of  our  Republic  is  too  broad  and  its  structure  too  strong 
to  be  shaken  by  them  [the  causes  which  have  destroyed  the  lib- 
erty of  other  States].  Its  extension  and  organization  will  be 
found  to  afford  effectual  security  against  their  operation ;  but  let 
it  be  deeply  impressed  on  the  heart  of  this  House  and  country, 
that  while  they  guarded  against  the  old,  they  exposed  us  to  a  new 
and  terrible  danger  —  disunion.  This  single  word  comprehended 
almost  the  sum  of  our  political  dangers ;  and  against  it  we  ought 
to  be  perpetually  guarded. 

Randolph's  motion  did  not  come  to  a  vote,  as  he  subse- 
quently withdrew  it. 

It  is  worthy  of  record,  as  showing  how  closely  the  methods 
of  different  times  often  resemble  one  another  that,  when  the 
tariff  bill  was  about  to  be  put  on  final  passage,  Calhoun  thought 
it  necessary  to  say  that  "  he  wished  merely  to  reply  to  the  in- 
sinuation of  a  mysterious  connexion  between  this  bill  and  that 
to  establish  the  bank.  He  denied  any  improper  or  unfair  un- 
derstanding, and  could  challenge  the  House  to  support  the 
charge.  In  fact,  Mr.  Calhoun  said,  the  most  zealous 
friends  of  the  bank  were  generally  unfriendly  to  this  tariff; 
and  the  warmest  friends  of  either  could  not  be  found  on  the 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  187 

same  side."  15     The  bill  then  passed  by  a  vote  of  88  to  54. 

Nor  should  it  be  left  unnoted  that  the  early  part 10  of  his  -. 
chief  speech  on  the  tariff  bill  shows  that  Calhoun  already  had 
a  fairly  clear  idea  of  the  interest  of  the  South,  so  often  on  his 
lips  at  a  later  date,  as  an  exclusively  agricultural  region, 
against  the  tariff.  But  the  charge  often  made  that  he  was  the 
author  of  the  Tariff  of  1816  is  simply  absurd.  He  was  not 
even  on  the  committee  that  drew  it,  and,  so  far  as  appears, 
had  no  hand  in  its  formation  except  by  virtue  of  his  vote  and 
of  a  few  arguments  on  the  floor.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  of 
course  likely  that,  as  a  leading  member,  he  was  to  some  extent 
consulted,  and  we  are  told17  that  the  great  manufacturer, 
Lowell,  whose  views  on  the  tariff  were  much  more  moderate 
than  those  of  the  Rhode  Island  manufacturers,  "  finally 
brought  Mr.  Lowndes  and  Mr.  Calhoun  to  support  the  mini- 
mum of  6%  cents  a  yard,  which  was  carried." 

In  his  speeches  upon  this  subject  Calhoun  used  not  a  few 
of  the  terms  of  the  protectionists  of  a  later  date,  such  as  "  our 
infant  industries  "  and  "  fostering  care,"  while  the  answering 
phrases  of  the  free  traders  by  no  means  failed  to  issue  from 
Randolph's  caustic  tongue,  who  denounced  18  the  measure  as 
one  to  support  "  a  mushroom  interest,"  "  a  scheme  of  public 
robbery,"  and  the  "  levying  an  immense  tax  on  one  portion  of 
the  country  to  put  money  into  the  pockets  of  another." 

The  Tariff  of  1816  became  a  law  by  the  President's  signa-  y 
ture  on  April  27,  and  was  on  the  whole  a  most  moderate  meas- 
ure. The  only  rather  ultra  feature  it  contained  was  what  is 
known  as  the  minimum,  under  which  artificial  grades  were 
established  and  low-priced  goods  in  some  cases  assumed  to 
have  cost  a  much  larger  figure.  Thus,  all  cotton  cloths  cost- 
ing less  than  25  cents  per  yard  were  to  be  valued  for  tariff 
purposes  as  if  they  had  cost  that  sum  and  were  then  charged 

15  Annals   of   Congress,    Fourteenth   Congress,    First   Session,    1815-16, 
p.  1361. 

16  Quoted  shortly  ante.     See  also  precisely  the  same  idea  in  his  speech 
of  April  6,  1814,  quoted  at  p.  170,  ante. 

17  Taussig's  "  Tariff  History,"  p.  34,  citing  Appleton's  "  Introduction  to 
the  Power  Loom,"  etc.,  p.  13. 

18  Annals   of    Congress,   Fourteenth   Congress,   First   Session,    1815-16, 
pp.  1328,  1329. 


188  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

an  ad  valorem  duty  of  25  per  cent,  on  that  price.  They  thus 
actually  paid  far  more  than  the  nominal  rate  of  25  per  cent. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  law  of  1816  entirely  abolished  the 
"  double  duties,"  which  had  been  maintained  during  the  war. 
On  the  whole,  and  measured  by  subsequent  standards,  the  rates 
were  certainly  in  general  low,  and  the  occasional  higher  ones 
were  to  be  reduced  in  a  few  years.  So  moderate  was  it  in- 
deed in  general  that  a  leading  author  upon  the  subject  of  our 
tariff  history  writes: 

The  act  of  1816,  which  is  generally  said  to  mark  the  begin- 
ning of  a  distinctly  protective  policy  in  this  country,  belongs 
rather  to  the  earlier  series  of  acts,  beginning  with  that  of  1789, 
than  to  the  group  of  acts  of  1824,  1828,  and  1832.  Its  highest 
permanent  rate  of  duty  was  20  per  cent.19 

One  other  point  must  be  emphasized.  The  impression  seems 
to  have  got  abroad  that  the  bill  was  forced  upon  New  England 
by  the  South,  but  this  is  a  complete  error.  Prof.  McMaster 
writes 20  that  "  the  vote,  both  Yea  and  Nay,  was  well  dis- 
tributed. But  the  strongest  opposition  came  from  New  Eng- 
land, and  the  warmest  support  from  the  South,'*  and  the  con- 
clusion is  possibly  correct,  if  the  latter  sentence  has  reference 
exclusively  to  the  debates.  In  regard  to  the  actual  vote  by 
which  the  measure  was  passed,  however,  the  fact  was  alto- 
gether different.  It  received  by  far  the  greatest  number  of 
votes  from  the  Middle  States  and  the  three  new  ones  of  Ohio, 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  while  New  England  was  in  its  favor 
by  a  good  majority  and  the  Southern  States  very  largely 
against  it.  The  vote  in  the  first-mentioned  section  (including 
the  three  new  States  named)  was  55  Ayes  and  8  Nays,  in  New 
England  17  Ayes  to  10  Nays,  and  in  the  South  16  Ayes  to  36 
Nays.  It  is  quite  true  that  Webster  opposed  the  bill,  and 
that  Calhoun  and  Lowndes  were  its  leading  advocates  during 

i»  F.  W.  Taussig's  "  Tariff  History,"  pp.  30,  68. 

20 "  History,"  Vol.  IV,  p.  339.  See  also  Schouler's  "United  States," 
Vol.  II,  p.  450,  where  much  the  same  general  conclusion  seems  to  be 
reached.  Calhoun  himself,  doubtless  remembering  in  the  main  his  own 
course  upon  the  bill,  vastly  overestimated  in  later  years  the  support 
given  by  the  South  so  far  as  votes  were  concerned.  See  his  speech 
on  the  Force  Bill  on  February  15  and  16,  1833,  in  "Works,"  Vol.  II, 
pp.  206,  207,  212. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  189 

the  debate ;  but  when  the  vote  was  taken  less  than  half  of  the 
delegation  even  from  South  Carolina  (Calhoun,  Lowndes, 
May  rant,  Woodward)  voted  Aye,  while  three  (Huger,  Moore 
and  Taylor),  voted  Nay  and  two  (Chappell  and  Middleton) 
did  not  vote  at  all. 

During  Calhoun' s  earliest  years  as  a  public  man  and  even 
before  he  was  elected  to  the  State  Legislature,  there  had  been 
some  home-market  and  pro-tariff  sentiment  in  South  Carolina. 
Thus,  at  the  legislative  session  held  in  June,  1808  (the  one 
preceding  his  service),  the  House  "considered  and  agreed  to 
a  resolution  from  the  Senate,  to  appear  next  session  in  manu- 
factures of  the  United  States."  21  In  the  fall  of  that  same 
year,  too,  was  laid  the  cornerstone  of  the  South  Carolina 
Homespun  Factory  Company  on  the  Ashley  River,  and  an 
address  delivered  by  Wm.  Loughton  Smith,  in  which  he  said, 
"  No  reflecting  citizen  can  any  longer  question  the  policy  of 
affording  every  encouragement  to  Domestick  Manufactures. 
The  hostile  restrictions,  which  have  from  time  to  time  en- 
thralled our  external  trade,  must  have  long  ago  pointed  out 
the  absolute  necessity  of  enlarging  the  sphere  of  internal  com- 
merce." 22 

Again,  at  the  legislative  session  of  November-December, 
1808,  in  which  Calhoun  sat  as  a  member,  the  same  Homespun 
Factory  presented  a  petition  "  for  an  union  with  the  State  and 
for  incorporation,"  which  was  favorably  reported  on  and 
passed  by  both  Senate  and  House.23  At  about  this  same  time, 
too,  the  Constitutional  Court,  at  the  November  term,  1808, 
upon  the  unanimous  request  of  the  bar  altered  "  the  rule, 
which  required  the  members  to  appear  in  court  with  black 
coats  and  gowns,  so  far  as  to  permit  any  other  color  to  be 
worn,  provided  it  should  be  of  the  growth  and  manufacture  of 
the  United  States.  The  members  of  the  bar  then  resolved 

21  The  Charleston  "Courier"  of  July  6,  1808. 

22  Ibid.,  October  31,  1808. 

28  The  Charleston  "Courier"  for  December  7,  13,  17,  21,  1808.  The 
Homespun  Company  was  established  in  1808  for  manufacturing  yarns 
and  cloths  and  a  spacious  brick  building  erected,  machinery  purchased 
and  machinists  and  workmen  brought  from  the  North  and  from  England, 
but  in  three  years  it  failed,  making  a  loss  of  four-fifths  of  the  capital, 
De  Bow's  "Commercial  Review,"  Vol.  VIII  (Jan.,  1850),  p.  24. 


190  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

to  appear  for  the  future  in  full  suits  of  domestic  manufacture 
and  recommended  dark  grey  as  the  color  to  be  worn.24 

There  is  of  course  no  proof  in  these  few  details  of  any 
strong  sentiment  in  favor  of  a  protective  tariff  in  the  sense 
of  our  history;  but  they  certainly  show  the  existence  of  a  line 
of  thought  tending  to  favor  home  productions  and  which  may 
fairly  be  supposed  to  have  had  its  part  in  leading  some  South 
Carolinians  towards  the  doctrine  of  governmental  protection. 
At  a  later  date,  too,  when  the  Tariff  of  1816  was  in  process 
of  enactment,  though  the  measure  was  disapproved  by  the 
strongly  Federalist  Charleston  Courier,  yet  the  paper's  lan- 
guage recognizes  clearly  the  wide-spread  sentiment  in  favor 
of  protection  and  appears  to  admit  that  this  feeling  existed  in 
South  Carolina.  The  issue  of  April  5,  1816,  reproduces  an 
article  from  the  Georgetown  Gazette  of  March  27,  in  which 
ffuTFollowing  language  is  used : 

This  Tariff  [the  then  pending  Act  of  1816],  high  and  exor- 
bitant as  it  is,  will  to  all  appearance  pass,  for  the  watchword  of 
the  day,  without  any  distinction  of  party,  seems  to  be  protec- 
tion to  Manufactures.  This  to  a  certain  point  may  be  correct, 
but  there  is  surely  a  medium  in  everything.  The  immediate 
effect  of  these  high  duties  must  be  peculiarly  felt  by  the  Southern 
States;  inasmuch  as  they  are  only  consumers,  whilst  the  Middle 
and  Eastern  States  are  manufacturers  as  well  as  consumers.  .  .  . 
Nor  is  this  all,  for  there  is  but  too  much  reason  to  fear  that  it  will 
excite  countervailing  duties  in  foreign  Nations,  not  upon  manu- 
factures, but  upon  our  raw  materials,  and  that  we  shall  have  our 
rice,  cotton  and  other  exports  so  taxed  abroad,  as  to  be  virtually 
NS^— €*duded  from  what  are  now  their  best  markets. 

Again  on  April  19,  1816,  the  Courier  prints  a  letter  from 
Washington  to  its  editor,  dated  April  12,  in  which  the  writer 
expresses  his  fear  "  that  the  mania  for  granting  protection,  as 
it  is  called,  or  as  [it]  might  more  properly  be  termed,  for  giv- 
ing bounties  to  Domestic  Manufactures,  which  carried  it 
,  through  this  [the  House]  will  likewise  carry  it  in  that  branch 
of  the  legislature." 

We  have  in  these  extracts  not  only  another  early  assertion 

December  3,  1808. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  191 

of  the  peculiar  position  of  the  South  in  regard  to  the  tariff, 
such  as  they  so  often  maintained  in  later  days,  but  a  tolerably^ 
clear  recognition  that,  though  the  writers  feared  the  results 
of  protection  upon  the  interests  of  their  section,  yet  that  there 
was  a  current  in  that  direction  and  no  little  sentiment  in  favor 
of  protection  and  of  the  interests  of  the  home-market.  And 
the  home-market  meant,  too,  the  American  market  and  noW__ 
that  of  South  Carolina  alone.  Without  the  existence  of  this 
sentiment,  it  is  very  unlikely,  moreover,  that  two  such  leading 
and  so  popular  men  as  Calhoun  and  Lowndes  would  be  found 
to  be  active  supporters  of  the  Tariff  of  1816. 

The  measure  passed  at  this  First  Session  of  the  Fourteenth 
Congress,  however,  which  more  especially  emanated  from  Cal- 
houn, was  that  which  resulted  in  the  creation  of  the  Second 
Bank  of  the  United  States.  This  step  was  certainly  not  in 
accord  with  the  inherited  beliefs  of  the  Republicans,  but  was 
dragged  from  them  by  hard  necessity.  Specie  payments  were 
still  suspended  south  of  New  England,  and  our  whole  financial 
system  was  near  the  point  of  collapse. 

The  consequent  difficulties  of  administration  were  most 
serious.  The  rate  of  discount  varied  materially  in  different 
parts  of  the  country,  being  at  its  worst  near  Washington,  but 
the  government  had  been  driven  by  necessity  to  collect  its 
dues  in  this  depreciated  paper  and  soon  fell  to  accepting  the 
currency  of  the  place  of  payment.  It  was  thus  robbed  of  its 
income  at  the  very  fountain-head ;  and  a  curious  result,  which 
further  contributed  to  dry  up  the  sources  of  revenue,  was  that 
the  import  trade  of  the  country  was  turned  into  the  waters  of 
Chesapeake  Bay,  where  the  depression  was  at  about  its  worst. 
The  importer  there  paid  tariff  charges  to  the  Government  in 
the  cheapest  money  and  could  then  ship  his  goods  where  he 
pleased. 

In  his  Message  at  the  opening  of  the  session  Madison,  who 
had  undoubtedly  been  opposed  to  a  national  bank,  for  the  first 
time  suggested  the  creation  of  one.  He  was  under  the  com- 
pelling influence  of  a  condition  before  which  his  theories  were 
abandoned.  Administration  was  well-nigh  impossible  in  the 
then  state  of  financial  affairs.  Writing  of  the  difficulties  he 


i92  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

met  with  and  of  the  imperative  need  of  a  uniform  national 
currency,  he  went  on  that,  until  the  precious  metals  could  again 
be  introduced,  "  it  devolves  on  the  wisdom  of  Congress  to 
provide  a  substitute,  which  shall  equally  engage  the  confidence, 
and  accommodate  the  wants  of  the  citizens  throughout  the 
Union.  If  the  operations  of  the  State  banks  cannot  produce 
this  result,  the  probable  operation  of  a  National  Bank  will 
merit  consideration." 

It  has  already  been  said  that  a  special  committee  on  Uni- 
form National  Currency  was  created  and  that  Calhoun,  owing 
to  his  prominence  upon  the  subject  at  the  prior  session,  was 
selected  by  Speaker  Clay  as  Chairman.  Dallas's  annual  re- 
port had  again  recommended  a  national  bank,  and  he  now  out- 
lined the  plan  of  one  in  reply  to  a  letter  from  Calhoun  asking 
his  views.  On  January  8,  1816,  Calhoun  reported  the  bill  for 
a  bank,  based  upon  Dallas's  suggestions.  Many  of  the  sub- 
jects of  contention  at  the  prior  session  had  been  entirely  re- 
moved by  peace,  and  the  purpose  of  Dallas  and  every  one  else 
at  this  time  was  to  establish  a  specie-paying  institution.  The 
factional  question,  too,  of  whether  the  institution  should  be 
founded  on  war  stock  alone,  or  on  earlier  issues  as  well,  was 
now  removed.  The  plan  reported  provided  for  a  capital  of 
$35,000,000,  of  which  the  United  States  were  to  subscribe  to 
one-fifth  and  the  public  to  four-fifths.  Payment  was  to  be 
made  three- fourths  in  funded  debt  and  one- fourth  in  specie. 
The  bank  was  to  be  at  Philadelphia,  was  to  have  branches, 
and  the  Government  was  to  appoint  five  of  the  twenty-five 
directors.  Its  notes  were  to  be  received  for  all  dues  of  the 
Government;  it  was  to  transfer  money  for  the  Government 
without  charge,  and  it  was  to  pay  a  bonus  of  $1,500,000.  On 
February  25,  Calhoun  spoke  to  the  bill  as  follows:  25 

25  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress  First  Session,  1815-16, 
pp.  1060-1066.  Calhoun  writes  ("  Autobiography,"  p.  23)  that  his  speech 
upon  this  occasion  was  "one  of  the  most  elaborate  and  powerful  he 
ever  delivered.  Unfortunately,  it  is  lost.  That  published  at  the  time 
is  a  meagre  sketch  of  what  took  three  hours  in  the  delivery,  and  such 
as  it  is,  never  passed  under  his  review  and  correction."  He  said  in  the 
Senate  on  September  19,  1837,  on  the  bill  for  the  issue  of  Treasury 
notes  ("Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  67,  68:  and  see  also  later  speech  in  ibid., 
p.  172),  "In  supporting  the  bank  of  1816,  I  openly  declared  that,  as  a 
question  de  novo,  I  would  be  decidedly  against  the  bank,  and  would  be 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  193 

He  did  not  propose  to  comprehend  in  this  discussion  the  power 
of  Congress  to  grant  bank  charters,  nor  the  question  whether  the 
general  tendency  of  banks  was  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  the 
liberty  and  prosperity  of  the  country.  .  .  .  To  discuss  these 
questions  he  conceived,  would  be  a  useless  consumption  of  time. 
The  constitutional  question  had  been  already  so  freely  and  fre- 
quently discussed  that  all  had  made  up  their  mind  on  it.  ... 
The  state  of  our  circulating  medium  was,  he  said,  opposed  to  the 
principles  of  our  Federal  Constitution.  The  power  was  given  to 
Congress  by  that  instrument  in  express  terms  to  regulate  the  cur- 
rency of  the  United  States.  .  .  .  No  one,  he  said,  who  referred 
to  the  Constitution,  could  doubt  that  the  money  of  the  United 
States  was  intended  to  be  placed  entirely  under  the  control  of 
Congress.  The  only  object  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
could  have  in  view  in  giving  to  Congress  the  "  power  to  coin 
money,  regulate  the  value  thereof  and  of  foreign  coin "  must 
have  been  to  give  a  steadiness  and  fixed  value  to  the  currency  of 
the  United  States.  .  .  .  He  presumed  one  of  the  first  rules  of 
such  a  bank  would  be  to  take  the  notes  of  no  bank  which  did  not 
pay  in  gold  or  silver.  .  .  .  This  would  produce  a  powerful  effect 
all  over  the  Union. 

During  the  debate  upon  the  bill,  Calhoun  always  took  the 
lead  in  its  favor,  while  the  Federalists  and  the  strict  construc- 
tionists  headed  by  John  Randolph  offered  a  persistent  opposi- 
tion. Webster  was  strongly  against  the  measure,  "  but  many 
members  of  his  party  from  the  middle  and  southern  states, 
where  the  evils  of  the  financial  situation  appealed  even  to  the 
dullest,  refused  to  follow  him,  and  a  keen  and  galling  exchange 
of  criminations  and  recriminations  between  these  two  wings 
closed  the  final  debate  in  the  House."  26  On  March  6,  Cal- 
houn had  said  in  debate  that  "  he  almost  despaired  of  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill,  after  some  of  the  indications  which  he  had 

the  last  to  give  it  my  support.  I  also  stated  that,  in  supporting  the 
bank  then,  I  yielded  to  the  necessity  of  the  case,  growing  out  of  the 
existing  and  long  established  connection  between  the  Government  and 
the  banking  system.  I  took  the  ground  even  at  that  early  period,  that 
so  long  as  the  connection  existed  —  so  long  as  the  Government  received 
and  paid  away  bank  notes  as  money,  they  were  bound  to  regulate  their 
value,  and  had  no  alternative  but  the  establishment  of  a  national  bank." 
For  the  other  proceedings  on  the  bank  bill  in  1816,  see  the  Annals,  tit 
supra,  pp.  494-505,  1152,  1219.  See  also  Vol.  II,  pp.  51,  52, 
2flCatterall's  "Second  Bank,"  p.  20. 


I94  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

witnessed,  and  he  began  to  doubt  whether  any  bill  would  pass 
at  all  on  the  subject.  For  himself,  Mr.  Calhoun  said,  his  an- 
xiety for  the  measure  was  not  extreme;  but  as  long  as  there 
was  a  lingering  hope  of  its  success,  he  should, omit  no  effort 
to  make  it  an  efficient  remedy  for  the  evils  of  the  present  cur- 
rency." 27 

On  March  14,  it  is  plain  to  see,  the  House  was  tired  of  the 
subject,  and  the  Annals  record  that  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
discussion  on  that  day  question  was  loudly  called  for.  At 
length,  at  a  late  hour,  relief  came  to  wearied  members,  and  the 
bill  was  passed  by  80  to  71.  On  April  5,  certain  amendments 
of  no  great  moment  made  by  the  Senate  were  concurred  in 
by  the  House,  and  then  the  measure  became  a  law  by  the 

/President's  signature  on  April  10,  1816.  The  famous  Second 
Bank  of  the  United  States  was  shortly  after  formed  under  this 
law,  and  entered  upon  its  tragic  history. 

Calhoun  was  in  reality  the  author  of  the  institution,  and 
what  he  said  eighteen  years  later  was  strictly  true.  "  I  might 
say  with  truth,"  so  he  spoke  in  the  Senate  on  January  13,  1834, 
"  that  the  bank  owes  as  much  to  me  as  to  any  other  individual 
in  the  country ;  and  I  might  even  add  that,  had  it  not  been  for 
my  efforts,  it  would  not  have  been  chartered."  28 

The  reader  will  have  observed  that  in  his  opening  speech 
upon  presenting  the  bill  Calhoun  had  expressed  the  opinion 
that  one  of  the  proposed  institution's  first  rules  would  be  not 
to  accept  the  notes  of  any  bank  but  such  as  paid  specie.  One 
]  of  the  great  purposes  in  view  was  to  bring  the  country  back  to 
a  gold  and  silver  basis,  and  on  April  6,  1816,  in  pursuance 
of  this  purpose,  Calhoun  reported  from  his  Committee  on 
National  Currency  a  bill  to  exclude  from  reception  the  notes  of 
banks  not  paying  specie,  and  thus  lead  to  resumption.  Various 
votes  on  the  bill  were  very  close,  and  Calhoun  tried  by  several 
changes  to  make  it  more  palatable  to  members ;  but  the  measure 

27  Annals,  as  above,  p.  1152. 

28  Speech    on    Removal    of    Deposits,    Congressional    Debates,    Vol.    X, 
Part  I,   1833-34,  P.  213,  or  "Works."  Vol.   II,  p.   325.    My  account  of 
the  bank  struggle  here  is  based  in  the  main  on  the  same  authorities  as 
have  already  beeri  mentioned  on  p.  169,  ante,  with  the  addition  of  Cal- 
houn's  Senate  speech  of  October  3,  1837,  printed  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp. 
125-129,  and  the  "Autobiography,"  pp.  16-18. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  195 

was  finally  defeated  on  April  25  by  59  Yeas  to  60  Nays. 

The  next  day  Webster,  who  had  voted  in  favor  of  Calhoun's 
bill,  introduced  a  provision  very  similar  in  general  effect,  in 
the  shape  of  a  joint  resolution,  which  was  passed  on  that  same 
day  by  71  to  34,  Calhoun  voting  with  the  majority.  This  reso- 
lution was  later  agreed  to  in  the  Senate,  and  was  approved  by 
the  President  on  April  30.  It  called  upon  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  adopt  such  measures  as  he  might  deem  necessary 
to  cause  all  taxes,  debts,  &c.  due  the  United  States,  to  be  paid 
in  legal  currency,  U.  S.  or  Treasury  Notes,  or  notes  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  "or  in  notes  of  banks,  which  are 
payable  and  paid  on  demand  in  the  said  legal  currency  of  the 
United  States."  February  20,  1817,  was  fixed  by  another 
section  as  the  date  after  which  no  such  taxes,  debts,  &c.  "  ought 
to  be  collected  or  received  otherwise  "  than  in  the  currencies 
specified.29 

During  the  debates  upon  this  measure,  Calhoun  had  urged 
the  fixing  of  an  early  date  for  resumption,  and  said  he  did  not 
believe  that  the  banks  were  sincere  in  their  intention  to  resume, 
but  that  they  could  do  so  and  ought  to  be  made  to.  It  should 
be  noted  also  that  his  then  fondness  for  the  easy  device  of 
Treasury  notes,  as  shown  in  his  proposed  substitute  at  the 
prior  session  for  the  Government  plan  of  a  national  bank, 
came  out  here  in  his  motion  to  amend  by  a  proviso  for  the 
issuance  of  fifteen  millions  of  Treasury  notes.  He  thought 
this  would  be  a  great  relief  to  the  community  under  the  pres- 
sure of  resumption.30 

That  the  bank  had  a  large  part  in  bringing  about  a  return  to 
specie  payments  is  beyond  question,  but  the  history  of  the 
institution  during  its  existence  of  twenty  years,  was  a  very 
chequered  one  and  need  not  be  gone  into  here,  where  the  only 
purpose  is  to  show  Calhoun's  relation  to  its  origin.  It  will 
appear  in  later  papers  what  was  his  opinion  of  it  in  more  mature 
years. 

One  point  in  the  history  of  the  institution,  however,  had 

29  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16, 
pp.  1345,  1356,  1437,  1440-51.  1919,  1920- 

so  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  $essipn,  1815-10, 
pp.  1389,  1390,  1415,  1416. 


196  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

t  -  better  be  treated  now,  as  it  bears  directly  on  Calhoun's  views  at 
this  early  period.  The  bank  was  charged  soon  after  going 
into  business  with  allowing  owners  to  make  payment  for  their 
stock,  not  in  specie  which  the  charter  specifically  required  for 
a  portion  of  the  second  payment  on  the  capital  but  by  dint  of 
loans  made  by  the  bank  itself  upon  the  part-paid  stock.  At 
the  next  session  of  Congress,  Forsyth  moved  for  a  .committee 
to  inquire  into  this  charge,  but  Calhoun  was  opposed  to  the 
motion  and  said  that  "  it  was  distinctly  understood  at  the  last 
session  that  the  second  specie  payment  would  necessarily  be 
made  by  accommodations  from  the  bank."  Such  an  "  under- 
standing," against  the  very  words  of  a  statute,  would  seem  to 
point  a  very  facile  method  of  avoiding  most  laws,  but  we  are 
told  by  the  leading  authority  31  upon  the  bank's  history  that 
"  every  bank  chartered  in  that  day  began  operations  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  way,"  and  this  statement  seems  to  be  borne  out, 
not  only  by  Calhoun's  already-quoted  speech,  but  by  at  least 
three  contemporary  and  authoritative  witnesses.32 

It  cannot  be  determined  by  general  rule  how  much  or  how 
little  the  loose  customs  of  business  may  rightfully,  or  even 
must,  at  times  override  the  provisions  of  law,  but  we  can  at 
least  safely  accept  the  view  of  the  bank's  historian  on  this  mat- 
ter that  the  directors  were  "  culpable  in  so  far  as  they  gave 
facilities  for  evading  the  requirements  of  the  law."  Calhoun 

^continued  to  defend  the  bank  and  later  in  the  debate  "  repeated 
his  approbation  of  the  regulation,  from  the  impartiality  it  pro- 
duced in  the  accommodations,  and  the  unhappy  effect  a  draft 
of  three  millions  on  the  money  market,  would  at  this  time  have 
produced  in  the  relation  between  paper  and  specie,  which  draft 
was  obviated  by  the  regulation.  ...  He  considered  the  notes 
of  the  bank  the  same  as  specie,  because  they  were  convertible 
into  gold  and  silver  at  pleasure."  33 

Forsyth's  resolution  was  carried  by  89  to  68,  but  was  re- 

31  "  The  Second  Bank  of  the  United  States,"  by  Ralph  C.  H.  Catterall, 
p.  41. 

!2  Mason  in  debate,  in  Annals  of  Congress,  I4th  Congress,  First  Ses- 
sion, 1815-16,  p.  236,  quoted  by  Prof.  Catterall,  p.  41 ;  Ingham  in  debate, 
ibid.,  Second  Session,  1816-17,  p.  434.  Director  of  the  Bank  Lloyd's  letter 
to  Calhoun  printed  at  ibid.,  p.  458. 

83  Ibid.,  pp.  431-36, 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  197 

ferred  to  Calhoun's  Committee  on  National  Currency,  and  he 
reported  against  it  on  January  10,  1817.  The  adverse  report 
was  chiefly  based  on  a  letter  from  James  Lloyd,  a  director  of 
the  bank  who  chanced  to  be  in  Washington  at  the  time  and 
was  called  upon  for  information  by  the  committee.  Lloyd 
wrote  in  reply  that  the  notes  on  which  the  loans  were  made 
were  "  payable  at  maturity  in  specie,  or  bills  of  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States."  Probably,  this  attempted  explanation  did 
not  seem  to  Forsyth  to  clear  up  the  matter,  and  on  January  14 
he  introduced  a  joint  resolution  in  regard  to  it,  but  the  subject 
was  not  reached,  and  near  the  end  of  the  session  he  himself 
had  it  indefinitely  postponed.34 

One  other  measure  became  a  law  at  the  first  session  of  the 
Fourteenth  Congress,  which  had  a  fateful  effect  on  many  an 
apparently  promising  career,  and  which  may  serve  to  show 
once  more  to  the  philosophical  reader  that  the  nature  of  man 
was  not  at  that  day  essentially  different  from  what  it  is  in  our 
own  time.  Members  of  Congress  were  then  still  paid  at  the 
rate  of  six  dollars  a  day,  as  they  had  been  since  1789,  but 
they  became  convinced  that  under  the  changed  circumstances 
prevailing  in  1816  this  was  not  enough.  The  conclusion  thus 
arrived  at  was  probably  quite  correct,  but  the  hasty  method  in 
which  a  material  change  was  made  is  certainly  open  to  grave 
criticism. 

On  March  4,  1816,  R.  M.  Johnson  of  Kentucky  introduced 
the  subject  and  thought  members  should  be  paid  the  sum  of 
$1500  per  session,  with  a  provision  to  reduce  the  pay  of 
absent  members  in  proportion  to  their  absence.  This  change 
from  a  per  diem  sum  would,  he  argued,  tend  to  "  the  despatch 
of  public  business,"  and  would  avoid  the  needless  prolongation 
of  the  sittings  of  Congress.  A  committee  upon  the  subject 
was  at  once  appointed  at  his  suggestion,  and  in  two  days 
(March  6)  it  reported  a  bill  to  change  the  method  of  pay  and 
establish  the  new  system  and  the  new  rate  advocated  by  John- 
son. The  next  day  (the  7th)  the  bill  was  debated  and  ordered 
to  third  reading  "  by  a  large  majority  " ;  and  then  on  the  8th, 

84  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17, 
pp.  431,  454-59,  476,  1053. 


198  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

after  a  speech  in  its  favor  by  Calhoun,  it  was  finally  passed 
by  a  vote  of  80  to  71,  and  sent  to  the  Senate.  The  upper  house 
did  not  act  with  quite  such  unseemly  haste  as  the  lower,  but 
passed  the  measure  on  March  I4th,  and  it  received  the  Presi- 
dent's signature  on  the  19th.  Under  its  terms,  the  law  was 
to  go  into  effect  at  once  and  to  apply  to  the  Congress  which 
had  passed  it.  Here  was  surely  an  early  case  of  "  railroad- 
ing "  a  bill  through  Congress.  Calhoun  voted  for  the  measure, 
and  in  his  speech  upon  it  said  as  follows : 

So  far  as  this  bill  proposed  to  increase  the  compensation  to 
members,  he  was  in  favor  of  it,  because  he  thought  the  present 
pay  very  inadequate  to  the  dignity  of  the  station,  and  far  short 
of  the  time,  labor  and  sacrifice  required.  He  thought  $1500 
would  be  found  not  sufficient,  and  would  prefer,  on  the  ground 
of  a  due  compensation  as  well  as  a  due  regard  to  principle,  $2500. 
...  A  majority  of  the  members  come  from  three  hundred  to 
eight  hundred  miles.  In  serving  the  country  they  are  not  only 
obliged  to  be  absent  a  great  part  of  the  year  from  their  families ; 
but  what  is  almost  equally  distressing,  to  be  absent  a  great  dis- 
tance. We  serve  at  the  expense  of  the  best  sympathies  of  our 
nature.  .  .  .  This  state  of  things  ought  to  be  counteracted  as  far  as 
possible;  the  condition  of  a  Member  ought  to  be  made  more  de- 
sirable than  at  present;  he  ought  at  least  to  be  able  to  have  his 
family  about  him,  which  he  cannot,  at  the  present  pay,  without 
ruin,  unless  he  be  a  man  of  property.35 

However  sound  these  views  may  perhaps  have  been,  they 
did  not  appeal  to  the  public,  and  there  was  a  furious  outburst 
throughout  the  whole  country  against  all  who  had  advocated 
the  law.  The  objections  were  to  no  little  extent  based  on  the 
change  from  daily  wages  to  a  salary,  which  was  looked  upon 
as  unrepublican.  Some  members  did  not  even  try  to  be  re- 
elected,  and  of  those  who  did,  numbers  were  left  at  home. 

"  Georgia,*'  so  a  well-known  historian  writes,  "  sent  back  but 
one  of  the  old  members,  South  Carolina  but  three  out  of  nine, 
Maryland  but  four  out  of  nine  and  Pennsylvania  thirteen  out 
of  twenty-three.  From  Ohio,  from  Delaware,  from  Vermont, 

85  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16, 
pp.  1183-85.  For  the  proceedings  on  the  bill  see  ibid.,  pp.  303,  1127-34, 
1150,  1158-77*  n88,  1801. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  199 

not  one  was  returned.     Connecticut  re-elected  two  out  of 
seven."  36 

Down  to  this  time,  Calhoun  had  been  a  very  popular  man  itf 
his  district,  so  much  so  that  not  only  had  two  prior  Members* 
of  Congress  withdrawn  so  as  to  leave  him  a  free  field,  but  we • 
are  told  by  Jenkins  37  that  "  he  was  returned  without  opposi- 
tion in  the  fall  of  1812  and  again  in  1814,  to  the  Thirteenth  and 
Fourteenth  Congress."  He  was  of  course  often  ridiculed  by*' 
the  opposition,  and  the  Charleston  Courier  seems  to  have  been 
particularly  fond  of  printing  such  criticisms  of  him,  coupled 
with  sadly  erroneous  prophecies  as  to  his  future.  Thus,  on 
January  17,  1812,  it  gave  some  "  Scraps  of  Debate  in  Con- 
gress "  from  the  Baltimore  Federal  Republican,  in  which 
were  contained  a  few  sentences  from  a  speech  of  Calhoun  on 
the  expenses  of  the  war,  in  order  to  ridicule  a  figure  of  speech 
he  had  used  as  to  "  frightening  the  eye."  Certain  remarks  he 
made,  too,  in  regard  to  his  recollections  of  the  whisky  tax  were 
ridiculed  upon  the  ground  that  he  was  almost  an  infant  at  the 
time,  and  this  then  served  to  lead  up  to  the  forecast  "  there 
is  no  great  prospect  of  his  ever  arriving  at  maturity  as  a 
statesman." 

But  in  a  very  few  years,  at  least  his  leading  position  was 
fully  recognized.  On  February  10,  1816,  the  Courier  repro- 
duced from  the  Georgetown  Federal  Republican  of  February 
1st  a  portion  of  his  speech  on  the  revenue  bill  and  then  adds : 
"  We  consider  it  of  deep  import,  as  indicating  the  secret  pur- 
poses, or  [at]  least  the  expectations  of  the  Cabinet  and  its 
party."  In  this  speech,  Calhoun  is  quoted  as  referring  to 
the  danger  of  war  with  Great  Britain,  and  then  saying:  "  We 
have  now  our  Jackson  to  oppose  to  her  Wellington!!!"38 
The  article  goes  on  that  he  was  first  in  favor  of  the  navy  and 

s«McMaster's  "United  States,"  Vol.  IV,  p.  362. 

37  "  Life  of  Calhoun,"  p.  64. 

38  Calhoun's  actual  words  were :    "  If  Britain  has  her  Wellington,  we 
have  our  Jacksons,   Browns,  and  Scotts.    If  she  has  her  naval  heroes, 
we  have  them  not  less  renowned,  for  they  have  snatched  the  laurel  from 
her   brows."     Annals   of   Congress,   Fourteenth    Congress,    First   Session, 
1815-16,  p.  833.     His  speech   on  the  Repeal  of  the  Direct  Tax  Bill  on 
January  31,  1816,  as  printed  in  "Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  149,  makes  him  say: 
"but  I  believe  that  steam  frigates  ought  at  least  to  constitute  a  part  of 
the  means  "  of  our  naval  defence. 


200  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

steam-vessels  and  wanted  an  army  of  10,000  men  and  military 
roads.  "In  short  he  was  for  suborning  everything  to  the 
purposes  of  war  and  military  parade.  Our  manufactures,  he 
said,  deserved  to  be  encouraged,  but  still  in  a  military  view." 

The  almost  universal  outburst  of  passion  consequent  upon 
the  passage  of  the  compensation  Bill,  shook  Calhoun's  popu- 
larity for  a  time.  When  he  reached  home  after  the  adjourn- 
ment in  April,  he  writes  39  that  he  "  found,  for  the  first  time, 
the  tide  of  popular  favor  against  him.  So  strong  was  the 
current,  that  his  two  predecessors,  who  had  retired  in  his 
favor,  General  Butler  and  Colonel  Calhoun,  the  latter  a  near 
relative,  were  both  violently  opposed  to  him,  and  the  former 
came  out  as  a  candidate  against  him.  They  were  both  men 
of  great  influence."  Calhoun  was  advised,  we  are  told  by 
the  same  authority,  to  appeal  to  the  kind  feelings  of  his  con- 
stituents and  apologize  for  his  vote,  but  this  he  absolutely 
declined  to  do.  The  election  for  the  next  Congress  was  to  be 
held  in  the  autumn  so  that  the  course  he  followed  was  vital 
to  his  future.  Having  declined  the  ill  advice  given  him,  he 
said  that  all  he  wanted  was  the  opportunity  to  address  his  con- 
stituents upon  the  subject. 

Days  were  accordingly  appointed  for  that  purpose  in  Abbe- 
ville and  Edgefield,  which  composed  his  Congressional  district, 
and  Calhoun  spoke  at  the  court-houses.  He  writes  in  his 
"  Autobiography "  that  he  confined  himself  entirely  to  the 
merits  of  the  question,  without  a  hint  of  apology  or  regret,  and 
'the  result  in  October  was  that  he  was  "  triumphantly  re- 
elected." 40  There  were  three  other  candidates  in  the  field, 
and  it  may  well  be  that  this  aided  him,  but  none  the  less  the 
boldness  of  his  course  was  certainly  most  creditable.  The  out- 
burst against  him  seems  to  have  been  merely  temporary  and 

39  "  Autobiography,"  p.  23. 

40  P.  23.    The   Charleston  "  Courier "  of   October  24,   1816,  prints   an 
item  from  the  Augusta  "  Chronicle  "  of  the  i8th  in  the  following  words : 
"  We  learn  by  a  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  who  reached  this  place 
last  evening,  that  Mr.  Calhoun  has  been  re-elected  to  Congress  from  that 
State  by  a  large  majority."    The  "Courier"  of  September  16  gives  the 
names  of  the  candidates  in  Calhoun's  district  as  being  John  C.  Calhoun, 
Gen.  Wm.  Butler,  Dr.  E.  S.  Davis,  and  Edmund  Bacon. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  201 

in  1820,  while  Secretary  of  State,  he  told  John  Quincy 
Adams41  that  he  was  "the  most  popular  man  in  his  dis- 
trict." 

On  the  second  day  of  the  next  session  a  bill  was  introduced 
to  repeal  this  law,  so  hastily,  rushed  through  Congress.     It 
will  be  observed  that  this  was  after  the  elections   for  the 
Fifteenth  Congress,  when  not  only  the  successful  members, 
but  those  who  had  been  defeated,  knew  their  fates  and  that 
many  of  their  voices  would  not  be  heard  at  the  session  to  meet 
after  the  one  then  sitting.     Calhoun  spoke  and  maintained 
that  his  opinion  remained  unaltered  in  favor  of  an  annual, 
rather  than  a  per  diem,  sum,  but  added  that  he  was  willing  to 
vote  for  the  latter,  if  it  was  fixed  at  an  adequate  rate, —  say 
$8  or  $9  a  day.     He  was  willing  to  do  this  on  the  ground 
that  such  a  method  of  payment  had  a  better  chance  of  being 
permanent,  because  the  members  of  the  next  Congress  would 
not  be  free  agents,  and  had,  he  said,  most  of  them  already 
committed  themselves  during  the  canvass.     He  maintained^ 
too,  that  members  were  not  obliged  to  follow  the  popular  ! 
clamor  and  were  not  subject  to  instruction,  which  had  existed  / 
in  none  of  the  governments  of  antiquity  and  was  an  English  \ 
corruption.    Of  course,  at  the  same  time  he  did  not  contend,  he 
said  during  the  debate  in  reply  to  a  critic,  that  the  voice  of  the 
people  was  to  be  disregarded;  the  permanent  feelings  of  the; 
community  will  impress  itself  on  us;  what  he  maintained  was 
that  instructions  .were  not  obligatory.42 

The  bill  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  138  to  27,  Calhoun  voting 
Nay.  It  also  passed  the  Senate,  and  then  received  the  signa^ 
ture  of  the  President  on  February  6,  1817.  By  its  terms  the 
Act  making  the  increase  was  in  turn  repealed,  with  a  proviso 
that  the  new  law  should  not  revive  any  act  repealed  or  sus- 
pended by  the  Act  of  the  prior  session.  Thus,  the  whole  sub- 
ject was  left  open  for  future  regulation.  In  the  next  Congress, 
when  Calhoun  was  not  a  member,  a  new  law  43  was  passed 

«  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  p.  10. 

42  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,   Second  Session,   1816-17, 
pp.  232,  243,  574-82,  653,  654,  714;  ibid.,  "Appendix,"  1278. 
*3  Peters's  "  U.  S.  Statutes  at  Large,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  404,  405. 


202  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

upon  the  subject,  fixing  the  pay  of  senators  and  representa- 
tives at  eight  dollars  a  day  with  an  allowance  for  mileage  of 
eight  dollars  for  every  twenty  miles. 

The  rate  thus  fixed  was  at  least  one-third  larger  than  had 
been  allowed  by  the  old  law  and  as  high  as  the  sum  which 
Calhoun  had  expressed  himself  as  ready  to  vote  for,  and  this 
result  seems  to  have  been  accepted  by  the  public  with  little 
demur.  The  total  received  by  members  under  the  new  law 
must  have  averaged  less  than  it  would  have  been  under  the 
fifteen  hundred  dollars  a  session  law  of  1816,  unless  the  large 
allowance  for  mileage  would  have  served  to  bring  it  up  to  as 
large  a  sum ;  but  Calhoun  had  sat  in  the  House  during  two  very 
long  sessions,  and  at  one  of  these  the  opposite  would  have 
been  the  case.  The  first  session  of  the  Twelfth  Congress 
lasted  244  days  and  the  third  session  of  the  Thirteenth  Con- 
gress 1 66  days;  so  that,  at  $8  per  diem,  members  would  have 
drawn  $1952  and  $1328  respectively,  mileage  excluded. 

This  is  not  the  only  instance  in  the  history  of  the  American 
people  in  which  they  have  burst  out  into  a  volcanic  tempest 
of  passion  far  greater  than  the  circumstances  call  for,  and  then 
have  later  accepted  with  complete  docility  a  final  result  not 
so  greatly  different  from  that  at  which  they  had  stormed  and 
railed  shortly  before.  Many  a  public  man  of  promise  has 
been  forever  eclipsed  by  these  popular  tempests,  which  in  our 
day  are  fanned  and  even  made  by  a  reckless  press,  regardless 
of  the  truth,  if  only  a  sensation  can  be  created  and  large  edi- 
tions be  in  demand,  while  in  early  days  the  railing  stump 
orator  was  probably  a  leading  factor.  In  the  instance  here 
concerned,  an  increase  of  salary  was  doubtless  called  for  by 
the  change  of  circumstances  in  the  course  of  twenty-seven 
years,  and  the  only  sound  subject  of  criticism  seems  to  have 
been  the  improper  and  foolish  haste  with  which  the  measure 
had  been  hurried  through  Congress. 

There  remains  one  other  leading  subject  upon  which  Cal- 
houn spoke  at  this  the  last  session  in  which  he  ever  sat  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  There  were  also  points  of  lesser 
moment,  which  must  be  touched  upon,  but  the  matter  now 
referred  to  was  evidently  in  his  opinion  of  prime  importance, 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  203 

and  his  already-quoted  speeches  have  in  several  instances  re- 
ferred to  it. 

During  the  war  the  greatest  difficulty  had  been  found  in 
transporting  men  and  material  from  one  part  of  the  country 
to  another  over  the  most  terrible  of  roads, —  and  often  where 
there  were  none, —  and  the  expense  had  of  course  been  a  very 
heavy  burden.  Ingersoll44  writes: 

It  was  estimated  that  it  cost  a  thousand  dollars  for  every 
cannon  conveyed  to  Sackett's  Harbor.  The  flour  for  Harrison's 
army  was  said  to  cost  a  hundred  dollars  per  barrel.  The  multi- 
plied incidental  but  inevitable  charges  of  travel  over  wilderness 
regions  without  roads,  required,  among  other  things,  thousands 
of  pack  horses,  each  of  which  could  carry  only  half  a  barrel  of 
provisions,  and  must  be  attended  by  trains  of  other  horses  with 
forage  for  those  laden  with  provisions.  The  distances  were 
hundreds  of  miles  over  trackless  deserts.  Few  horses  survived 
more  than  one  trip;  many  sunk  under  one.  Of  four  thousand 
pack-horses  to  supply  Harrison's  small  army,  but  eight  hundred 
were  alive  after  the  winter  of  1812-13.  Large  quantities  of 
flour  were  buried  in  mud  .and  snow,  from  inability  to  carry  it 
any  farther,  large  quantities  damaged  when  arrived  at  the  place 
of  destination. 

Those  having  charge  of  public  affairs  were  of  course  deeply 
impressed  with  all  this,  and  Madison's  first  message  to  the 
Fourteenth  Congress, —  the  first  session  to  come  together  after 
peace, —  was  in  no  little  part  colored  by  the  trying  experiences 
of  the  war.  Many  subjects  were  suggested  to  Congress  as 
proper  matters  for  legislation,  and  one  portion  of  the  Mes- 
sage read : 

Among  the  means  of  advancing  the  public  interest,  the  occa- 
sion is  a  proper  one  for  recalling  the  attention  of  Congress  to 
the  great  importance  of  establishing  throughout  our  country  the 
roads  and  canals  which  can  be  executed  under  the  national  au- 
thority. .  .  .  And  it  is  a  happy  reflection,  that  any  defect  of  con- 
stitutional authority,  which  may  be  encountered,  can  be  supplied 
in  a  mode  which  the  constitution  itself  has  providently  pointed 
out. 

**"  Second  War"  (1812-13),  Vol.  I,  p.  283. 


204  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Nothing  came  of  this  suggestion  at  the  time,  and  Calhoun 
himself  opposed  it  as  inopportune ;  but  at  the  beginning  of  the 
next  session  the  President  again  referred  to  the  subject  in 
his  message :  Thus  he  wrote  to  Congress : 

And  I  particularly  invite,  again,  their  attention  to  the  expedi- 
ency of  exercising  their  powers,  and,  where  necessary,  of  resort- 
ing to  the  prescribed  mode  of  enlarging  them,  in  order  to  effectu- 
ate a  comprehensive  system  of  roads  and  canals,  such  as  will 
have  the  effect  of  drawing  more  closely  together  every  part  of 
our  country,  by  promoting  intercourse  and  improvements,  and  by 
increasing  the  share  of  every  part  in  the  common  stock  of  na- 
tional prosperity. 

In  a  few  days, —  on  December  16,  1816, —  Calhoun  moved 
for  a  committee  on  the  expediency  of  setting  aside  the  bonus 
and  the  net  annual  proceeds  received  from  the  National  Bank 
as  a  fund  for  internal  improvement.  He  remarked  that  a 
like  proposition  had  been  made  at  the  prior  session,  but  was 
then  opposed  by  him  as  inopportune.  A  committee,  consist- 
ing of  Calhoun,  Sheffey,  Creighton,  Grosvenor,  and  Ingham 
was  appointed,  and  from  it  Calhoun  reported  on  December  23 
a  bill  providing  that  "  the  United  States's  share  of  the  divi- 
dends of  the  National  Bank,  and  the  bonus  for  its  charter,  be 
and  the  same  are  hereby  set  apart  and  permanently  pledged 
as  a  fund  for  constructing  roads  and  canals;  and  that  it  be 
subject  to  such  specific  appropriations,  in  that  respect,  as  Con- 
gress may  hereafter  make."  45 

The  "  Autobiography  "  tells  us  that,  in  introducing  this  bill, 
Calhoun  supposed  that  he  was  acting  in  strict  conformity  to 
the  President's  recommendations.  It  will  be  observed  that 
no  specific  appropriation  was  made  for  any  particular  purpose, 
and  Calhoun' s  speech  shows  pretty  plainly  that  he  had  inten- 
tionally so  drawn  the  measure  for  the  very  purpose  of  steer- 
ing clear  of  the  constitutional  scruples  of  some  members.  In- 
deed, he  emphasizes  this  point  in  the  "  Autobiography,"  and 
states  that  the  bill  did  not  "  intend  to  affirm  that  Congress  had 
any  power,  much  less  to  fix  the  limits  of  its  power,  over  the 

45  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17, 
pp.  296,  297,  361. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  205 

subject ;  but  to  leave  both,  as  well  as  the  appropriations  there- 
after to  be  made,  to  abide  the  decision  of  Congress,  in  con- 
formity with  the  President's  views."  46 

This  method  of  leading  people  on  half-way  in  some  meas- 
ure by  virtue  of  a  device  to  enable  the  advocate  to  maintain 
plausibly  that  nothing  is  really  done  has  always  been  one  of 
the  ways  in  which  the  successful  public  man  accomplishes 
numbers  of  his  ends.  The  bold  man  of  determined  charac- 
ter knows  the  trap  too  well  to  fall  into  it,  but  easy-going  mem- 
bers, who  want  to  please  every  one  and  probably  need  in  turn 
to  secure  votes  for  some  pet  progeny  of  their  own,  are  often 
caught  and  wake  up  later  to  find  it  extremely  difficult  to  op- 
pose a  policy  which  has  by  that  time  grown  greatly  by  what 
it  has  fed  on,  and  yet  which  in  their  hearts  they  thoroughly 
disapprove. 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  it  seems  to  me,  that  such  was 
Calhoun's  purpose  in  the  form  he  gave  to  this  measure,  but 
the  general  plan  he  had  in  mind  and  his  speech  upon  the  sub- 
ject were  certainly  in  a  high  degree  statesmanlike.  Indeed, 
the  subject  was  one  to  give  fine  scope  to  a  mind  inclined  to 
deal  with  such  subjects  from  the  view-point  of  the  very  high- 
est statesmanship,  for  what  can  be  a  better  ideal  for  a  public 
man  than  to  arrange  affairs  so  that  the  entirely  voluntary 
action  of  the  millions  shall  have  free  scope  to  carry  out  their 
own  plans  and  thus  better  themselves  and  their  country  ?  How 
much  better  simply  to  lay  the  opportunity  before  all  the  peo- 
ple than  to  be  forever  struggling  for  the  passage  of  laws  and 
still  more  laws,  which  are  directed  in  the  main  to  command 
the  involuntary  action  of  but  a  small  number. 

Calhoun  felt  this  strongly,  and  his  speech  will  show  how 
he  appreciated  the  value  to  his  country  and  his  countrymen 
of  the  measure  he  advocated.  The  constitutional  question47 

*«P.  21. 

47  The  "Autobiography,"  (pp.  21,  22),  has  it  that  Calhoun's  "impression, 
like  that  of  most  of  the  young  men  of  the  party  at  the  time,  was,  that  it 
[the  constitutional  power]  was  comprehended  under  the  money-power  of 
the  government.  Experience  and  reflection  soon  taught  him  that  this 
was  an  error  —  one,  in  all  probability,  originating  with  him,  and  others 
of  his  own  age,  in  the  precedent  of  the  Cumberland  Road,  which  may 
be  regarded  as  the  first  departure  by  the  Republican  party  from  the 


2o6  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

does  not  seem  to  have  carried  much  weight  with  him,  unless 
so  far  as  it  was  an  obstruction  to  be  cleared  away  from  the 
minds  of  some  hesitating  members;  and  I  cannot  but  think 
that  this  was  largely  typical  of  his  viewpoint  during  all  these 
early  years  of  his  congressional  service.  Once  more  upon 
this  measure,  we  find  his  mainspring  of  action  to  be  the  de- 
sire to  do  everything  to  advance  the  power  of  the  country, 
and  as  one  method  of  contributing  to  this  end  to  furnish  the 
means  by  which  the  aggregate  of  our  people  might  have  the 
opportunity  to  increase  their  wealth.  Nor  did  the  additional 
military  power  to  be  conferred  upon  us  by  any  means  remain 
forgotten  by  him.  It  will  be  found  that  a  few  years  later, 
while  Secretary  of  War,  he  returned  to  the  same  subject  and 
in  his  well-known  report  developed  at  length  his  plan  of  a  sys- 
tem of  roads  and  canals.  His  speech  upon  the  subject  in  the 
House  was  made  on  February  4,  1817,  and  seems  to  have 
been  widely  admired  throughout  the  Union.  It  was  long,  but 
the  following48  quotation  will  give  his  main  points.  After 
referring  to  the  importance  of  roads  and  canals  to  the  devel- 
opment of  national  wealth,  he  continues : 

In  fact,  if  we  look  into  the  nature  of  wealth,  we  will  find  that 
nothing  can  be  more  favorable  to  its  growth  than  good  roads 
and  canals.  .  .  .(Let  it  not  be  said  that  internal  improvements 
may  be  wholly  left  to  the  enterprise  of  the  States  and  of  indi- 
viduals.^) He  knew,  he  said,  that  much  might  justly  be  expected 
to  be  done  by  them.  .  .  .  But  many  of  the  improvements  con- 
templated, said  Mr.  Calhoun,  are  on  too  great  a  scale  for  the 
resources  of  the  States  or  individuals;  and  many  of  such  a  na- 
ture, that  the  rival  jealousy  of  the  States,  if  left  alone,  might 
prevent.  .  .  .  But  there  are  higher  and  more  powerful  considera- 
tions why  Congress  ought  to  take  charge  of  this  subject.  If  we 
were  only  to  consider  the  pecuniary  advantages  of  a  good  system 
of  roads  and  canals,  it  might  admit  of  some  doubt  whether  they 
ought  not  to  be  left  wholly  to  individual  exertions  £but  when  we 
come  to  consider  how  intimately  the  strength  and  political  pros- 
perity of  the  Republic  are  connected  with  this  subject,  we  find 

true  construction  of  the  Constitution  in  reference  to  that  dangerous 
power." 

48  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17, 
pp.  851-858. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  207 

the  most  urgent  reasons  why  we  should  apply  our  resources  to 
themTj  In  many  respects  no  country  of  equal  population  and 
wea^Im  possesses  equal  materials  of  power  with  ours.  The  people, 
in  muscular  power,  in  hardy  and  enterprising  habits,  and  in  a 
lofty  and  gallant  courage,  are  surpassed  by  none.  In  one  re- 
spect, and,  in  my  opinion,  in  one  only,  are  we  materially  weak. 
We  occupy  a  surface  prodigiously  great  in  proportion  to  our 
numbers.  The  common  strength  is  brought  to  bear  with  great 
difficulty  on  the  point  that  may  be  menaced  by  an  enemy.  .  .  . 
Good  roads  and  canals,  judiciously  laid  out  are  the  proper  rem- 
edy. .  .  .  But  on  this  subject  of  national  power,  what,  said  Mr. 
Calhoun,  can  be  more  important  than  a  perfect  unity  in  every 
part,  in  feelings  and  sentiments?  And  what  can  tend  more 
powerfully  to  produce  it  than  overcoming  the  effects  of  distance  ? 
No  country,  enjoying  freedom,  ever  occupied  anything  like  as 
great  an  extent  of  country  as  this  Republic.  .  .  .  Let  it  not, 
however,  be  forgotten,  let  it,  said  he,  be  forever  kept  in  mind, 
that  it  [our  vastness]  exposes  us  to  the  greatest  of  all  calamities, 
next  to  the  loss  of  liberty,  and  even  to  that  in  its  consequence  — 
disunion.  We  are  great,  and  rapidly  —  he  was  about  to  say  fear- 
fully—  growing.  This,  said  he,  is  our  pride  and  our  danger  — 
our  weakness  and  our  strength.  Little,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  does 
he  deserve  to  be  intrusted  with  the  liberties  of  this  people,  who 
does  not  raise  his  mind  to  these  truths.  We  are  under  the  most 
imperious  obligation  to  counteract  every  tendency  to  disunion. 
The  strongest  of  all  cements  is,  undoubtedly,  the  wisdom,  jus- 
tice, and,  above  all,  the  moderation  of  this  House;  yet  the 
great  object  on  which  we  are  now  deliberating,  in  this  respect, 
deserves  the  most  serious  consideration.  .  .  .  Let  us  then,  said 
Mr.  Calhoun,  bind  the  Republic  together  with  a  perfect  system 
of  roads  and  canals.  r  Let  us  conquer  space.  ...  So  situated, 
said  he,  blessed  with  a  form  of  Government  at  once  combining 
liberty  and  strength,  we  may  reasonably  raise  our  eyes  to  a  most 
splendid  future,  if  we  only  act  in  a  manner  worthy  of  our  advan- 
tages. If,  however,  neglecting  them,  we  permit  a  low,  sordid, 
selfish,  and  sectional  spirit  to  take  possession  of  this  House,  this 
happy  scene  will  vanish.  We  will  divide,  and  in  its  consequences 
will  follow  misery  and  degradation.  .  .  . 

Such,  then,  being  the  obvious  advantages  of  internal  improve- 
ments, why,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  should  the  House  hesitate  to 
commence  the  system?  He  understood  there  were,  with  some 


208  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

members,  constitutional  objections.  The  power  of  Congress  is 
objected  to  —  first,  that  they  have  none  to  cut  a  road  or  canal 
through  a  State  without  its  consent;  and  next,  that  the  public 
moneys  can  only  be  appropriated  to  effect  the  particular  powers 
enumerated  in  the  constitution.  The  first  of  these  objections,  it 
is  plain,  does  not  apply  to  this  bill.  No  particular  road  or  canal 
is  proposed  to  be  cut  through  any  State.  The  bill  simply  appro- 
priates money  to  the  general  purpose  of  improving  the  means  of 
communication.  When  a  bill  is  introduced  to  apply  the  money 
to  a  particular  object  in  any  State,  then,  and  not  till  then,  will 
the  question  be  fairly  before  us.  Mr.  Calhoun  gave  no  opinion 
on  this  point.  In  fact,  he  scarcely  thought  it  worth  the  discus- 
sion, since  the  good  sense  of  the  States  might  be  relied  on.  They 
will  in  all  cases  readily  yield  their  assent.  The  fear  is  in  a 
different  direction;  in  a  too  great  solicitude  to  obtain  an  undue 
share  to  be  expended  within  their  respective  limits.  In  fact,  he 
said,  he  understood  this  was  not  the  objection  insisted  on.  It 
was  mainly  urged  that  the  Congress  can  only  apply  the  public 
money  in  execution  of  the  enumerated  powers.  He  was  no  ad- 
vocate for  refined  arguments  on  the  constitution.  The  instru- 
ment was  not  intended  as  a  thesis  for  the  logician  to  exercise  his 
ingenuity  on.  It  ought  to  be  construed  with  plain,  good  sense; 
and  what  can  be  more  express  than  the  constitution  on  this  very 
point?  The  first  power  delegated  to  Congress  is  comprised  in 
these  words  "  To  lay  and  collect  Taxes,  Duties,  Imposts  and  Ex- 
cises, to  pay  the  Debts  and  provide  for  the  common  Defence  and 
general  Welfare  of  the  United  States;  but  all  Duties,  Imposts 
and  Excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United  States  " ; 
First  —  the  power  is  given  to  lay  taxes;  next,  the  objects  are 
enumerated  to  which  the  money  accruing  from  the  exercise  of 
this  power  may  be  applied;  to  pay  the  debts,  provide  for  the 
common  defence  and  promote  the  general  welfare.  ...  If  the 
f  ramers  had  intended  to  limit  the  use  of  the  money  to  the  powers 
afterwards  enumerated  and  defined,  nothing  could  have  been 
more  easy  than  to  have  expressed  it  plainly.  He  knew  it  was 
the  opinion  of  some  that  the  words  "  to  pay  the  debts,  and  pro- 
vide for  the  common  defence  and  general  welfare  "  which  he 
had  just  cited  were  not  intended  to  be  referred  to  the  power  of 
laying  taxes,  contained  in  the  first  part  of  the  section,  but  that 
they  are  to  be  understood  as  distinct  and  independent  powers, 
granted  in  general  terms;  and  are  gratified  by  a  more  detailed 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  209 

enumeration  of  powers  in  the  subsequent  part  of  the  constitu- 
tion. .  .  .  [He  did  not  accept  this  view.]  ...  He  asked  the 
Members  to  read  the  section  with  attention,  and  it  would,  he 
conceived,  plainly  appear  that  such  could  not  be  the  intention. 
The  whole  section  seemed  to  him  to  be  about  taxes.  It  plainly 
commenced  and  ended  with  it,  and  nothing  else  could  be  more 
strained  than  to  suppose  the  intermediate  words  "  to  pay  the 
debts  and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and  general  welfare  " 
were  to  be  taken  as  independent  and  distinct  powers.  Forced, 
however,  as  such  a  construction  was,  he  might  admit  it  and  urge 
that  the  words  do  constitute  a  part  of  the  enumerated  powers. 
.  .  .  But  suppose  the  constitution  to  be  silent,  said  Mr.  Calhoun, 
why  should  we  be  confined  to  the  application  of  money  to  the 
enumerated  powers?  There  is  nothing  in  the  reason  of  the 
thing  that  he  could  perceive,  why  it  should  be  so  restricted;  and 
the  habitual  and  uniform  practice  of  the  Government  coincided 
with  his  opinion.  [He  here  cited  instances  of  charitable  be- 
quests, the  purchase  of  Louisiana,  the  appropriations  for  the 
Cumberland  road.]  ...  In  reply  to  this  uniform  course  of  legis- 
lation, Mr.  Calhoun  expected  it  would  be  said  that  our  constitu- 
tion was  founded  on  positive  and  written  principles,  and  not  on 
precedents.  He  did  not  deny  the  position;  but  he  introduced 
these  instances  to  prove  the  uniform  sense  of  Congress  and  of 
the  country  (for  they  had  not  been  objected  to)  as  to  our  powers; 
and  surely,  said  he,  they  furnish  better  evidence  of  the  true  in- 
terpretation of  the  constitution  than  the  most  refined  and  subtle 
arguments. 

Let  it  not  be  urged  that  the  construction  for  which  he  con- 
tended gave  a  dangerous  extent  to  the  powers  of  Congress.  In 
this  point  of  view,  he  conceived  it  to  be  more  safe  than  the  oppo- 
site. By  giving  a  reasonable  extent  to  the  money  power,  it 
exempted  us  from  the  necessity  of  giving  a  strained  and  forced 
construction  to  the  other  enumerated  powers.  .  .  .  He  was  not 
adverse  to  presenting  his  views  [as  to  the  internal  improvements 
to  be  carried  out].  The  first  great  object  was  to  perfect  the 
communication  from  Maine  to  Louisiana.  This  might  fairly  be 
considered  as  the  principal  artery  of  the  whole  system.  The 
next  was  the  connexion  of  the  Lakes  with  the  Hudson  river. 
.  .  .  The  next  object  of  chief  importance  was  to  connect  all  the 
great  commercial  points  on  the  Atlantic,  Philadelphia,  Boston, 
Washington,  Richmond  [sic],  Charleston  and  Savannah,  with 


210  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  Western  States;  and  finally  to  perfect  the  intercourse  be- 
tween the  West  and  New  Orleans.  These  seemed  to  him  to  be 
the  great  objects. 

The  bill  passed  the  House  on  February  8,  1817,  by  the  close 
vote  of  86  to  84,  and  was  sent  to  the  President  for  his  ap- 
proval, after  certain  Senate  amendments  had  been  concurred 
in.49  It  was  by  this  time  a  very  different  measure  from,  that 
which  Calhoun  had  proposed,  and  it  is  curious  to  find  50  that, 
among  other  amendments  made  to  this  proposal  of  the  future 
strong  advocate  of  State  Rights,  was  one  that  owed  its  origin 
to  the  rampant  Federalist,  Pickering,  and  required  the  consent 
of  any  State  to  the  building  of  a  road  or  canal  within  its  lim- 
its. 

But  a  serious  disappointment  awaited  the  author  of  the 
measure.  It  has  been  said  that  Calhoun  thought  he  was  act- 
ing directly  in  the  line  desired  by  Madison,  and  it  seems  to 
me  clear  that  the  two  messages  quoted  justified  this  belief. 
A  bill  to  do  less  in  the  matter  of  internal  improvements  would 
have  been  hard  to  draw;  and,  if  Madison  meant  to  suggest 
a  constitutional  amendment  and  no  present  legislative  action, 
his  two  messages  should  apparently  have  contained  simply 
a  recommendation  of  the  amendment  and  nothing  else.  But 
it  is  possible  that  his  mind  was  not  made  up  at  the  time  and 
that  later  reflection  convinced  him  that  no  power  upon  the 
subject  was  vested  in  Congress. 

Calhoun's  knowledge  of  the  intention  to  veto  came  to  him 
in  a  curious  way.  The  bill  reached  the  President  a  few  days 
before  the  end  of  his  term  and  his  final  retirement  from  pub- 
lic life,  and  while  it  was  still  in  his  hands  Calhoun  called  to 
take  leave.  It  was  his  farewell  visit,  and  he  congratulated 
the  retiring  veteran  upon  the  success  of  the  Administration 

49  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17, 
pp.  185-88,  191,  934,  1052,  1059-62. 

50  Pickering  moved  an  amendment  requiring  among  other  things  the 
assent  of  a  State  to  the  building  of  a  road,  or  canal,  within  its  limits; 
and  when  Calhoun  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  by  striking  out  the 
words  "  with  the  consent  of  the  State,"  the  motion  was  lost  by  a  large 
majority,  and  Pickering's  amendment  was  agreed  to  without  a  division. 
Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,   Second  Session,   1816-17,  pp. 
875,  916-18,  922. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  211 

and  expressed  the  happiness  he  felt  at  having  been  able  to 
cooperate  during  the  most  trying  period.  He  then  took  his 
leave.  Madison,  however,  called  him  back  when  he  had  al-j 
ready  reached  the  door;  and  for  the  first  time  the  President 
disclosed  his  belief  that  the  measure  was  unconstitutional,  and 
added  that  he  intended  to  veto  it. 

Calhoun,  we  are  told,  expressed  deep  regret  that  Madison 
should  hold  this  belief  and  had  not  earlier  intimated  his  feel- 
ing, and  added  that,  if  he  had  been  informed  in  time,  he  would 
have  spared  the  President  the  necessity,  so  late  in  the  day,  of 
vetoing  a  measure  passed  by  the  votes  of  his  friends  and  would 
himself  have  avoided  seeing  the  name  and  authority  of  the 
President  brought  against  him  upon  the  question.  Calhoun 
even  entreated  the  President  to  reconsider  the  question ;  but  it 
was  too  late.  Madison's  mind  was  made  up,  and  the  veto  came 
in  upon  March  3,  i8i7.51  It  was  based  upon  the  fact  that 
the  power  was  not  among  those  enumerated  and  could  not 
be  derived  from  any  of  the  general  expressions.  It  could  not 
by  any  just  interpretation  be  included  within  the  power  to 
make  laws  necessary  and  proper,  nor  could  the  power  to 
regulate  commerce  among  the  several  States  include  it,  iit 
the  President's  opinion,  "  without  a  latitude  of  construction 
departing  from  the  ordinary  import  of  the  terms,"  while  to 
refer  it  to  the  power  to  provide  for  the  common  defence  and 
general  welfare  would  be  contrary  to  the  established  rules  of 
interpretation. 

Thus  came  to  an  untimely  end  a  measure  that  had  probably 
been  a  pet  one  with  Calhoun.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know 

51 "  Autobiography/'  p.  21;  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress, 
Second  Session,  1816-17,  pp.  1060,  1061.  Calhoun  told  a  friend  in  1831 
that  he  had  always  had  his  doubts  and  had  never  once  committed  himself 
on  the  constitutional  question  as  to  internal  improvements, — "That  he 
had  refused  to  do  so  in  his  Bonus  Bill  Report,  against  the  wishes  both 
of  Clay  and  Lowndes,  telling  them  he  had  his  doubts.  .  .  .  Mr.  Madison 
did  it  [vetoed  the  bill]  to  please  Mr.  Jefferson.  Mr.  Calhoun  said  he 
had  been  immediately  transferred  from  Congress  to  the  War  Department 
and  had  never  had  an  opportunity  of  vindicating  himself  from  the  various 
charges  made  upon  him  on  this  score  which  he  felt  himself  prepared 
to  do  most  triumphantly  whenever  called  upon  in  such  a  manner  that  he 
could  come  out  with  propriety."  J.  H.  Hammond's  Memorandum  of  Cal- 
houn's  Conversation  of  Mar.  18,  1831,  in  Nullification  in  South  Carolina, 
1830-34.  "Amer.  Historical  Review,"  Vol.  VI,  (1900-1),  pp.  741-45- 


212  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

how  he  felt  and  what  he  said  as  to  the  author  of  his  discom- 
fiture, whose  action  was  certainly  not  to  be  anticipated  after 
what  had  preceded  it;  but  Calhoun  did  not  keep  a  diary  in 
which  to  pour  out  gall  in  relation  to  the  actions  of  his  con- 
temporaries, nor  do  I  know  of  any  letter  to  an  intimate  in 
which  he  expressed  his  feelings.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
his  advocacy  of  a  federal  system  of  roads  and  canals  was  to 
a  considerable  extent  induced  by  the  prevalence  of  a  like  sys- 
tem in  South  Carolina. 

It  has  been  already  said  that  there  were  several  matters  of 
lesser  importance  upon  which  Calhoun  spoke  and  in  which  he 
took  a  leading  part  during  his  service  in  the  House.  He 
seems  to  have  been  always  present,  was  thoroughly  conver- 
sant with  the  details  of  our  system  of  administration,  and  it 
is  evident  that,  though  he  was  often  on  the  floor,  he  was 
carefully  listened  to  and  wielded  great  power  over  the  assem- 
blage. In  some  of  these  instances  it  is  easy  to  find  traces  of 
the  later  tendencies  of  his  mind,  but  in  others  this  is  not  the 
case.  In  all  he  threw  light  upon  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion and  was  certainly  a  very  useful  member. 

On  January  9,  1816,  while  the  House  had  under  discussion 
a  bill  for  carrying  into  effect  the  Convention  of  Commerce  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  he  spoke52  upon 
that  thorn  of  constitutional  students,  the  treaty-making  power 
under  our  constitution  and  reasoned  upon  it  so  closely,  that 
William  Pinkney  is  said  to  have  referred  to  him  in  the  fol- 
lowing words  uttered  later  in  the  debate : 

The  subject  has  already  been  treated  with  an  admirable  force 
and  perspicuity,  on  all  sides  of  the  House.  The  strong  power  of 
argument  has  drawn  aside,  as  it  ought  to  do,  the  veil  which  is 
supposed  to  belong  to  it,  and  which  some  of  us  seem  unwilling 
to  disturb;  and  the  stronger  power  of  genius,  from  a  higher 

52  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16, 
pp.  526-33.  Pinkney's  speech,  quoted  immediately  infra,  is  to  be  fojnd 
in  ibid.,  pp.  564-65.  "Autobiography,"  p.  24.  The  "Autobiography" 
furnishes  the  only  positive  proof  that  Pinkney  referred  in  particular  to 
Calhoun's  speech,  though  the  debate  makes  this  seem  highly  likely.  The 
student  of  the  treaty-making  power  can  find  it  treated  again  by  Calhoun 
at  a  later  date  in  his  "Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Government 
of  the  United  States,"  "  Works,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  201-204. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  213 

region  than  that  of  argument,  has  thrown  upon  it  all  the  light 
with  which  it  is  the  prerogative  of  genius  to  invest  and  illustrate 
everything. 

In  the  course  of  the  same  debate,  this  defender  par  excel- 
lence in  later  days  of  Southern  views  spoke  as  follows,53  in 
referring  to  the  provision  of  the  constitution  to  allow  the 
slave-trade  until  1808: 

It  covered  him  with  confusion  to  name  it  here.  He  felt 
ashamed  of  such  a  tolerance,  and  took  a  large  part  of  the  dis- 
grace, as  he  represented  a  part  of  the  Union  by  whose  influence 
it  might  be  supposed  to  have  been  introduced.  Though  Congress 
alone  is  prohibited  by  the  words  of  the  clause  from  inhibiting 
that  odious  traffic,  yet  his  colleague  would  admit  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  be  a  general  prohibition  on  the  Government  of  the 
Union.  He  perceived  his  colleague  indicated  his  dissent. 

Vy 

Some  will  find  here  a  grave  inconsistency  with  the  speak- 
er's later  views,  which  the  present  writer,  however,  does  not 
think  has  any  essential  existence.  I  should  say  that  the  young 
Calhoun  in  this  instance  merely  spoke  out  his  views  freely  in 
regard  to  a  subject  that  had  not  then  become  vital  by  the  agi- 
tation of  the  slavery  issue.  Later,  when  the  very  civilization 
of  his  home  region  seemed  to  him  to  be  endangered  thereby, 
he  would  certainly  not  have  openly  expressed  this  same  feel- 
ing, though  he  may  well  have  continued  to  feel  it. 

On  December  17,  1816,  when  there  was  pending  a  pro- 
posal to  amend  the  Constitution  so  as  "  to  establish  an  uni- 
formity of  the  mode  of  election  [i.  e.  by  districts]  in  all  the 
States,  of  Representatives  to  Congress  and  Electors  of  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President,"  Calhoun  observed 54  that  "  he  con- 
sidered this  a  question  of  great  importance.  He  thought  the 
proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution,  if  adopted,  would 
remove  some  evils  which  experience  has  shown  to  exist,  and 
which  in  future  time,  if  uncorrected,  .may  menace  the  exist- 
ence of  the  Republic.  He  therefore  thought  this  subject  en- 

53  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16, 
PP-  53i,  532. 

5*  Ibid.,  Second  Session,  1816-17,  p.  311.  The  same  subject  is  advocated 
by  him  in  letters  of  1825 ;  "  Correspondence,"  p.  230 ;  "  Bulletin  of  the 
New  York  Public  Library,"  Vol.  Ill  (1889),  pp.  328,  329. 


2i4  LIFE  OF  J°HN  C  CALHOUN 

titled  to  the  most  mature  consideration."  The  same  amend- 
ment was  in  later  years  advocated  by  other  members,  but  I 
am  not  aware  that  Calhoun  then  took  any  active  interest  in  it. 

When  questions  of  public  law  began  to  come  before  Con- 
gress in  regard  to  the  revolting  Spanish-American  colonies, 
Calhoun,  in  common  with  other  members,  said55  that  he 
wished  the  colonies  well,  but  added  that  he  would  not  allow 
these  wishes  to  influence  him  to  permit  a  violation  of  our 
neutrality.  He  seems,  however,  to  have  been  rather  easy  in 
his  view  as  to  what  constituted  neutrality  and  in  reply  to  Hop- 
kinson  of  Pennsylvania  contended  that  "to  sell  vessels  to 
either  of  the  belligerents  was  no  violation  of  our  neutrality, 
and  that  a  trade  in  arms  and  munitions,  or  in  vessels,  stood 
on  the  same  footing.  Spain  herself  purchased  vessels  at  Ha- 
vana for  the  public  service,  and  she  could  not  object  to  an  act 
in  others,  which  she  had  done  herself.  ...  To  sell  armed 
vessels  in  our  own  ports  to  a  belligerent,  he  acknowledged 
would  be  illegal,  but  maintained  that  they  might  be  transferred 
after  their  departure  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  country." 

He  was  a  strong  believer,  it  seems,  in  holding  governmen- 
tal agencies  strictly  to  the  law.  On  one  occasion,  when  the 
statute, —  already  referred  to, —  to  pay  owners  for  property 
destroyed  by  the  enemy  under  certain  conditions  seems  to  have 
been  interpreted  by  the  Commissioner  thereunder  in  a  way 
to  threaten  the  Government  with  bankruptcy,  Forsyth  intro- 
duced resolutions  to  request  the  President  to  order  the  further 
execution  of  the  law  suspended,  but  Calhoun  at  once  said  that 
the  defect  was  not  in  the  law  but  in  its  execution,  and  added 
that  he  did  not  want  to  give  his  support  to  any  proposition 
that  assumed  the  power  of  the  House  to  suspend  a  law.  The 
result  was  that  the  law  was  amended  and  limited.56 

Another  instance  in  which  he  aimed  to  curb  the  Executive 
is  not  altogether  dissimilar.  Under  some  interpretation  of  a 
statute,  it  was  then  the  custom  for  the  President  to  transfer 
appropriations  at  his  discretion  from  one  branch  of  the  serv- 

55  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17, 
PP.  747,  752. 

06  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17, 
pp.  346,  291,  390-94,  1345-47- 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  215 

ice  to  another  in  the  War  and  Navy  departments,  and  this 
was  a  power  that  those  in  authority  wanted  to  preserve.  Cal- 
houn  expressed  himself  very  strongly  against  it.  He  said : 

It  was  a  sheer  abuse  of  power,  not  justified  by  the  existing 
laws,  as  lax  as  they  unfortunately  are  on  this  point.  .  .  .  The 
further  we  progress  in  this  business,  the  more  apparent  is  the 
necessity  of  abolishing  the  whole  power  of  transfers.  .  .  .  Not 
a  cent  of  money  ought  to  be  applied  but  by  our  direction  and 
under  our  control.  How  stands  the  fact?  We  are  told  that 
most  extensive  and  superb  stone  barracks,  sufficient  to  receive 
two  thousand  troops,  have,  the  last  year,  been  erected  near 
Sackett's  Harbor,  though  not  a  cent  was  appropriated  to  this 
object.  .  .  .  He  conceived  it  to  be  indispensable  that  our  appro- 
priations should  be  made  in  many  respects  more  specific.  .  .  . 
It  is  then  indispensable  that  the  right  of  transferring,  or  rather 
dispensing  with  appropriations,  be  repealed  and  prohibited.  In 
the  next  place,  the  year  for  the  appropriation  and  for  expendi- 
ture should  coincide. 

He  had  already  moved  a  resolution  looking  to  repeal  of 
the  power  of  transfer,  and  later  in  the  session  a  statute  was 
passed  to  curtail  it,  though  not  so  completely  as  Calhoun  had 
wanted.  This  result  was  accomplished,  too,  in  spite  of  the 
opposition  of  the  Executive  and  of  Cheves,  the  Chairman  of 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee.57 

In  relation  to  military  matters,  he  was  active,  both  during 
the  war  and  after  it,  and  was  evidently  well-informed  for  a 
civilian.  Herein  may  possibly  be  found  one  of  the  reasons 
for  that  transfer  of  his  services  to  the  War  Department  at 
which  we  have  now  nearly  arrived.  This  subject  has  already 
been  referred  to  in  part,  but  some  other  details  remain,  which 
show  moreover,  that  he  stood  very  close  to  Monroe  during 
the  latter's  administration  of  the  War  Department.  On  No- 
vember 10,  1814,  Calhoun  offered  resolutions  directing  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs  to  inquire  into  the  expediency 
of  changing  the  then  mode  of  supplying  the  army  by  con- 

57  Journal  of  the  House,  Second  Session,  Fourteenth  Congress,  p.  119. 
Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17,  pp. 
374,  956-960:  I  bid.,  "Appendix,"  p.  1336;  "Autobiography,"  p.  24;  "Cal- 
houn Correspondence,"  p.  795. 


216  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

tract,  and  to  report;  and  also  that  the  Secretary  of  War  be 
directed  to  inform  the  House  whether  the  army  was  trained 
by  one  uniform  system  of  discipline,  and  if  not  what  causes 
have  prevented  it.58  In  a  short  speech,  he  said  he  heard  from 
reliable  sources  that,  under  the  prevailing  system  of  supply, 
speculation  was  not  infrequent  and  the  army  often  left  inef- 
ficient. He  also  referred  to  the  vital  necessity  of  good  train- 
ing and  then  told  the  House  that  there  was  no  unity  of  disci- 
pline, as  many  as  five  or  six  systems  being  employed.  "  So 
great  was  this  variance," — such  was  the  lamentable  picture 
he  drew  of  our  lack  of  military  unity, — "  that  no  large  body 
of  our  Army,  Brown's  command  perhaps  excepted,  could  be 
properly  exercised  together." 

Monroe  replied  to  the  inquiry  in  a  few  days  (November 
23rd)  that  "  no  uniform  system  of  discipline  has  heretofore 
been  practised  in  training  the  Armies  of  the  United  States, 
either  in  line,  by  battalion,  or  company,"  and  he  recommended 
a  Board  of  General  and  Field  Officers  to  digest  and  report  a 
plan.  On  Calhoun's  motion,  the  matter  was  referred  to  a 
special  committee,  from  which  he  soon  reported  a  resolution 
"  that  the  Secretary  of  War  be  directed  to  appoint  a  Board 
of  Officers  to  modify  '  the  rules  and  regulations  for  the  field 
exercise  and  manoeuvres  of  the  French  infantry/  as  translated 
by  Macdonald,  so  as  to  make  them  correspond  with  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  and  to  make 
such  additions  and  retrenchments  as  may  be  thought  proper; 
and  to  lay  the  same  as  soon  as  possible  before  this  House." 
The  resolution  was  agreed  to  by  the  House,  but  the  matter 
seems  to  have  gone  no  further. 

Surely,  here  was  an  awful  expose  of  our  unfitness  for  the 
serious  business  of  war,  and  here  was  a  field  for  the  ambi- 
tion of  any  man  having  the  ability  to  conceive  and  introduce 
a  system  where  such  chaos  then  prevailed! 

Calhoun  by  no  means  belonged  in  that  class  of  fiery  and 
aggressive  members  who  are  forever  in  a  wrangle  with  some 

58  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Third  Session,  1814-15, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  550,  551.  Monroe's  reply  to  the  inquiry  is  in  ibid.,  p.  638,  and 
for  later  proceedings  see  pp.  988,  989.  As  to  Calhoun's  relations  with 
Monroe,  see  also  p.  226,  post. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  217 

one;  but  at  the  same  time  it  has  been  shown  that  he  was  al- 
ways ready,  in  case  of  need,  to  meet  the  very  ablest  of  his  col- 
leagues, and  even  such  as  were  much  his  senior  and  celebrated 
for  their  caustic  tongue.  He  had  either  volunteered  or  been 
selected  early  in  his  service  to  cross  swords  with  the  bitter 
Randolph,  and  in  several  other  instances  had  minor  clashes 
with  him.  With  Webster,  too,  by  far  the  most  brilliant  of 
those  then  just  coming  upon  the  stage  of  public  events  and 
bursting  with  the  most  ultra  opposition  to  all  the  measures 
of  his  country,  Calhoun  had  numerous  exchanges  in  debate, 
but  all  these  passed  off  kindly  and  evidently  left  no  feeling. 
So  far  as  Webster  is  concerned,  his  relations  then  as  well  as 
all  through  their  long  association  were  generally  friendly,  and 
I  find  no  instance  in  which  even  Randolph  found  occasion  to 
quarrel  with  the  young  South  Carolinian,  despite  the  fact 
that  they  were  constantly  on  opposite  sides  and  were  often 
directly  pitted  against  each  other.  Randolph  will,  indeed,  be 
shortly  quoted  as  speaking  in  terms  of  high  praise  of  the 
younger  member,  even  at  the  very  moment  of  disagreeing 
from  him  toto  ccelo. 

He  was,  however,  too  prominent  on  the  floor  not  to  be  sin- 
gled out  now  and  then  for  attack.  In  November,  1814,  when 
the  war  outlook  was  black  indeed  and  the  bank  bill  once  more 
in  the  throes  of  failure,  Hanson  of  Maryland  said: 

I  am  glad  to  see  that  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  of  the  House 
have  at  last  collected  the  courage,  and  manifested  their  deter- 
mination to  pursue  what  they  call  an  ignis  fatuus  (Mr.  Calhoun) 
no  further.  An  ignis  fatuus,  truly,  sir,  and  which,  like  other 
jack-o'-lanterns,  engendered  in  the  fens  of  party,  will  play  about 
the  surface  of  those  stagnated  pools  until  it  sinks  and  is  extin- 
guished. It  was  this  same  bold  and  false  prophet  who  led  us 
into  Canada  to  conquer  free  trade  and  sailors'  rights;  and  such 
is  the  sanguine  nature  of  the  late  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Relations,  that  I  have  no  doubt  even  now  he  would  con- 
tract, if  he  could  find  security  for  the  forfeiture,  to  capture  in 
six  weeks,  more  or  less,  the  whole  British  army  and  deliver  them, 
bound  hand  and  foot,  at  the  Capitol. 

Here  the  ironical  member  was  called  to  order  by  the  Speaker 


218  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

and  continued  in  a  milder  key.  Calhoun  at  once  replied,  but 
his  speech  is  not  printed  and  the  "  Annals  "  merely  record  that 
during  the  speeches  of  both,  "  they  were  called  to  order  more 
than  once  by  the  Speaker."  59 

So  far  as  I  have  found,  there  was  but  one  instance  in  these 
days  in  which  Calhoun  fell  into  an  actual  quarrel  with  a  mem- 
ber. Thomas  P.  Grosvenor  was  a  leading  representative  from 
New  York  during  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth,  as  well  as 
part  of  the  Twelfth  Congresses  at  the  same  time  with  Cal- 
houn, and  was  a  strong  opponent  of  the  war.  So  bitter  in- 
deed was  his  opposition  that  Charles  J.  Ingersoll,  who  was  a 
member  with  him  during  the  war,  writes 60  of  "  Grosvenor 
and  Pickering,  always  opposed  to  the  administration,  what- 
ever it  wanted."  A  couple  of  instances  have  already  been 
cited61  in  which  Calhoun  expressed  indignation  at  certain  sen- 
timents uttered  by  Grosvenor  in  debate,  and  it  was  there  sug- 
gested that  these  differences  may  well  have  been  concerned  in 
leading  up  to  the  trouble. 

The  actual  quarrel,  so. the  "  Autobiography  "  62  tells  us,  oc- 
curred in  one  of  the  secret  sessions  during  the  war,  and  after 
that  time  the  two  members  were  not  on  speaking  terms.  An- 
other authority63  tells  us  that  the  matter  went  so  far  that  a 
duel  was  arranged  for  and  was  only  prevented  by  the  inter- 
ference of  Clay.  The  latter,  so  this  story  runs,  was  called 
upon  "in  his  retirement  by  a  learned  gentleman,  indifferent 
to  both  parties,  who  desired  his  official  interference.  Refus- 
ing for  obvious  reasons  this  species  of  interposition,  Mr.  Clay, 
however,  volunteered  his  friendly  efforts  at  a  pacification,  and 
succeeded  just  in  time  to  avert  extremities." 

59  Annals  of   Congress,   Thirteenth   Congress,   Third   Session,   1814-15, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  662-665. 
60 "Second  War,"  Vol.  II   (1814),  p.  262. 

61  P.  149,  ante. 

62  Pp.  23,  24. 

6*  "  An  Argument  on  the  Powers,  Duties  and  Conduct  of  the  Hon.  John 
C.  Calhoun  as  Vice-President  of  the  United  States  and  President  of 
the  Senate"  (reprinted  from  the  "National  Journal"),  Washington, 
1827.  Letter  No.  5  ("National  Journal,"  August  8,  1826),  p.  56.  The 
"Autobiography,"  (p.  31)  and  Jenkins  ("Life,"  p.  159)  both  write 
that  these  anonymous  letters  were  supposed  to  have  been  written  by  the 
then  President,  John  Quincy  Adams,  but  this  subject  will  be  considered 
later.  Mr.  Jervey  ("Robert  Y.  Hayne  and  his  Times,"  p.  50)  writes 
that  Clay  and  Senator  Bibb  of  Georgia  were  Calhoun's  seconds. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  219 

This  quarrel  with  Grosvenor  was  presumably  made  up  at 
a  later  date,  for  near  the  close  of  the  session,  and  the  very 
day  after  Calhoun's  speech  in  opposition  to  the  repeal  of  the 
increase  of  salary  bill,  Grosvenor  said  on  the  floor  of  the 
House : 

I  have  heard,  with  peculiar  satisfaction,  the  able,  manly,  and 
constitutional  speech  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina.  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  will  not  be  restrained.  No  barrier  shall  exist  which 
I  will  not  leap  over  for  the  purpose  of  offering  to  that  gentleman 
my  thanks  for  the  judicious,  independent,  and  national  course, 
which  he  has  pursued  in  this  House  for  the  last  two  years,  and 
particularly  upon  the  subject  now  before  us.  Let  the  honorable 
gentleman  continue  with  the  same  manly  independence,  aloof 
from  party  views  and  local  prejudices,  to  pursue  the  great  inter- 
ests of  his  country,  and  fulfil  the  high  destiny  for  which  it  is 
manifest  he  was  born.  The  buzz  of  popular  applause  may  not 
cheer  him  on  his  way,  but  he  will  inevitably  arrive  at  a  high  and 
happy  elevation  in  the  view  of  his  country  and  the  world.64 

The  reader,  who  is  familiar  with  Calhoun's  method  of  ap- 
proaching constitutional  questions  in  later  life,  will,  I  think, 
have  observed  how  differently  these  questions  were  regarded 
by  him  in  his  earlier  years.  There  was,  of  course,  during 
his  term  of  service  in  the  House  the  vast  difference  that,  for 
reasons  already  referred  to,  he  generally  wanted  to  find  the 
power,  and  here  is  a  motive  that  absolutely  controls  many 
minds  and  vastly  influences  all.  But  it  is  to  me  impossible 
to  imagine  the  older  Calhoun  omitting  to  discuss  65  the  ques- 
tion of  the  constitutional  power  to  create  a  bank,  even  when 
members'  minds  were  made  up;  or  to  no  little  extent  basing 
another  power  on  a  short-lived  and  occasional  practice  of  the 
government ; 68  and  still  less  making  such  arguments  as  those 
which  he  has  been  shown  to  have  made  upon  the  question  of 

64  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17, 
p.  621.    Grosvenor  was  at  this  time  by  no  means  cheered  on  by  "the 
buzz  of  popular  applause."    He  was  one  of  the  victims  of  the  Salary 
Bill,  for  which  he  had  voted, —  as  had  Calhoun, —  but  the  New  Yorker 
was  less  fortunate  than  the  South  Carolinian  and  was  never  again  in 
Congress. 

65  Quoted  ante,  p.  193. 

66  Speech  on  Internal  Improvements  quoted  ante,  pp.  206-210. 


220  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  federal  control  of  the  finances,  or  as  to  internal  improve- 
ments.67 The  easy  interpretation68  that  a  statute  reading 
that  certain  payments  on  the  bank's  capital  should  be  made  in 
specie  was  fulfilled  by  payment  in  banknotes,  loaned  by  the 
bank  upon  the  stock  itself  as  security,  is  much  of  the  same 
general  character. 

A  great  difference,  too,  is  to  be  found  in  the  mere  style  of 
his  speeches  in  later  life  and  as  a  young  man.  In  the  earlier 
period  there  is  a  tendency  to  antithesis,  a  possible  redundancy 
of  expression,  and  a  general  straining  after  oratorical  meth- 
ods, utterly  unknown  to  the  little  ornamented  but  so  com- 
pelling logic  of  his  later  years.  As  a  young  man,  he  undoubt- 
edly cultivated  the  arts  of  the  orator,  and  his  style  is  often 
florid  and,  in  some  instances, —  so  it  seems  to  the  writer, — 
even  sophomoric.  The  peroration  to  one  of  his  speeches  on 
a  revenue  question  already  quoted,69  may  well  serve  as  an  il- 
lustration of  the  latter  point,  while  nearly  all  bear  traces  of 
the  other  tendencies, —  perhaps  notably  those  upon  the  repeal 
of  the  embargo  and  upon  the  Loan  Bill  in  i8i4.70  He  was 
evidently  looked  upon  as  a  rising  orator,  in  the  sense  of  one 
who  convinces  or  influences  by  moving  appeals  and  brilliant 
language,71  and  not  at  all  chiefly  by  cold-cut  reasoning.  The 
"  Autobiography  "  records  that  William  Lowndes  was  struck 
with  Calhoun's  great  improvement  in  speaking  and  urged  him 
not  to  leave  the  halls  of  legislation. 

Some  contemporary  authorities  may  serve  to  give  us  an 
idea  of  his  manner.  One  of  these  writes : 72 


Mr.  Calhoun  is  a  young  man  of  great  sensibility  —  has  had 
the  advantage  of  an  excellent  education,  aided  by  astonishing 
powers  of  memory  —  recites  in  debate  the  anecdotes  and  inci- 
dents of  both  modern  and  ancient  history  with  wonderful  facility 

67  Quoted  respectively  ante,  pp.  193  and  206  et  seq. 

68  See  ante,  p.  196. 

69  Ante,  p.  181. 

70  Ante,  pp.  132-134  and  152. 

71 "  Measures  not  Men,"  ut  supra,  regards  his  speech  on  the  Direct  Tax 
Bill. —  a  small  portion  of  which  is  quoted  at  pages  180,  181,  ante, —  as  "a 
perfect  model  of  parliamentary  eloquence " ;  p.  26. 

72 The  New  York  "Evening  Post"  of  March  15,  1814,  quoted  in  Jer- 
vey's  "Hayne,"  p.  51. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  221 

and  accuracy  —  is  dexterous  in  the  management  of  a  political 
cause  —  exercises  a  goodly  share  of  zeal  —  commands  a  rapid 
though  limited  eloquence,  little  embellished  by  metaphor  or 
imagery  —  supported  by  a  charming  metaphysical  analysis  and 
prompted  by  an  apparent  sagacity  almost  peculiar  to  himself  on 
the  floor,  where  he  exhibits.  He  is  the  leader  of  what  is  called 
the  Administration  party  in  the  House.  .  s 

And  Ingersoll  writes :  73 

John  Caldwell  Calhoun  was  the  same  slender,  erect,  and  ardent 
logician,  politician,  and  sectarian  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives in  1814  that  he  is  in  the  Senate  of  1847.  Speaking  with 
aggressive  aspect,  flashing  eye,  rapid  action  and  enunciation,  un- 
adorned argument,  eccentricity  of  judgment,  unbounded  love  of 
rule,  impatient,  precipitate  ambition,  kind  temper,  excelling  in 
colloquial  attraction,  caressing  the  young,  not  courting  rulers; 
conception,  perception,  and  demonstration  quick  and  clear,  with 
logical  precision  arguing  paradoxes,  and  carrying  home  convic- 
tion beyond  rhetorical  illustration;  his  own  impressions  so  in- 
tense as  to  discredit,  scarcely  listen  to,  any  other  suggestions; 
well  educated  and  informed. 

In  far  simpler  language  a  prominent  Republican  of  Maine, 
after  hearing  the  speech  on  the  bonus  bill,  wrote 74  of  Calhoun 
in  1817  as  being  both  in  the  writer's  and  the  general  opinion 
"  the  most  elegant  speaker  that  sits  in  the  House,"  and  then 
goes  on :  "  His  gestures  are  easy  and  graceful,  his  manner 
forcible,  and  language  elegant ;  but  above  all,  he  confines  him- 
self closely  to  the  subject,  which  he  always  understands,  and 
enlightens  every  one  within  his  hearing;  having  said  all  that 
a  statesman  should  say,  he  is  done.  I  am  told  that  he  has 
the  most  weight  in  that  body,  and  so  he  should  have,  for  he 
can  more  fully  comprehend  a  subject,  and  is  always  ruled  by 
a  liberal  and  enlightened  policy." 

Finally,  a  few  words  more  must  be  said  in  the  interest  of 
historic  truth,  and  by  no  means  with  any  desire  to  carp  at  the 
human  frailties  of  a  great  statesman, —  in  regard  to  the  fact 

"  "  Second  War,"  Vol.  II,  1814,  p.  258. 

74  James  C.  Jewett  to  Gen.  Dearborn,  from  Washington,  February  5, 
1817:  "William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly  Historical  Magazine,"  Vol. 
XVII,  No.  2  (Oct.,  1908),  pp.  139-144. 


222  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

that  no  long  course  of  years  elapsed  before  Calhoun's  opinions 
on  many  of  the  subjects  he  discussed  in  the  House  between 
1811  and  1817  had  undergone  a  very  great  and  fundamental 
change.  The  human  mind  is  forever  growing,  and  it  should 
not  be  a  discredit  to  a  public  man  that  he  has  thought  differ- 
ently of  the  same  subject  at  different  times.  Not  only  do  one's 
tendencies  and  consequent  beliefs  inevitably  vary,  as  the  swift 
years  rush  by,  but  circumstances  change  so  enormously  in 
the  complicated  affairs  of  man  that  the  subject  itself  becomes 
quite  another  one  in  a  relative  sense. 

The  stern  and  unbending  Tory  of  early  youth  grows  into 
the  advocate  of  household  suffrage  and  Irish  Home  Rule  in 
later  life.  The  anti-monarchist  and  almost-Republican  of 
youthful  days  turns  into  the  man  of  blood  and  iron  and  cre- 
ates the  German  Empire,  overriding  law  and  ruthlessly  crush- 
ing his  earlier  partners  in  belief.  The  freetrader  Webster, 
forever  breathing  in  early  days  the  unpatriotic  opposition  of 
his  section  to  the  War  of  1812  and  full  of  prophecies  of  evil 
to  our  constitutional  "  compact,"  becomes  a  leader  of  the  pro- 
tective forces,  the  expounder  of  the  Constitution,  the  man 
who  probably  did  more,  prior  to  1861,  than  any  other  of  the 
sons  of  men  to  make  America  a  nation.  So  of  all  of  us ;  and 
so  a  biographer  must  be  allowed  to  say,  without  impropriety, 
of  his  chosen  subject. 

An  observer,  whose  pen  was  probably  not  guided  by  preju- 
dice, wrote  thus  of  Calhoun  about  1823 : — "  He  is  ardent, 
persevering,  industrious  and  temperate,  of  great  activity  and 
quickness  of  perception,  and  rapidity  of  utterance;  as  a  poli- 
tician too  theorizing,  speculative  and  metaphysical  —  magnifi- 
cent in  his  views  of  the  powers  and  capacities  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  of  the  virtue,  intelligence  and  wisdom  of  the  peo- 
ple. He  is  in  favor  of  elevating,  cherishing  and  increasing  all 
the  institutions  of  the  government,  and  of  a  vigorous  and  ener- 
getic administration  of  it.  From  his  rapidity  of  thought,  he 
is  often  wrong  in  hrs  conclusions,  and  his  theories  are  some- 
times wild,  extravagant  and  impractical."  75 

75  Letter  of  Elijah  H.  Mills,  undated  but  supposed  to  be  of  1823  and 
to  his  wife,  in  "Proceedings  Mass.  Historical  Society,"  Vol.  XIX  (1881- 
82)*  PP-  37*  3&  Mills  was  elected  to  the  Senate  from  Massachusetts  in 
1821  and  sat  until  1827. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  CONGRESS  223 

During  Calhoun's  early  days  in  the  Legislature,  one  at  least 
of  the  older  men,  but  a  crabbed  character  and  long  a  mere 
Thersites,  saw  the  tendency  of  Calhoun's  then  views  to  crip- 
ple the  power  of  the  States  and  turn  all  eyes  to  the  federal 
government,  so  that  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  issue  was  en- 
tirely un-made  up.  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  spoke  as  fol- 
lows in  reply  to  a  speech76  of  Calhoun's  in  1816  in  favor  of 
a  strong  army  and  navy  and  advocating  protection  and  in- 
ternal improvements: 

I  must  say,  in  the  abstract,  I  was  pleased  with  the  gentleman's 
speech,  but  I  have  long  believed  there  was  a  tendency  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  this  Government,  in  the  system  itself  indeed,  to 
consolidation,  and  the  remarks  made  by  the  honorable  member 
from  South  Carolina  have  not  tended  to  allay  any  fears  I  have 
entertained  from  that  quarter.  ...  He  put  it  to  the  Committee, 
to  the  gentleman  himself,  whether  the  gentleman's  principles 
(which  he  had  demonstrated  with  an  ability  honorable  to  the 
State  which  he  represented,  to  the  House,  and  to  himself)  did 
not  go  to  the  destruction  of  the  State  governments.  ...  I  say 
that  these  doctrines  go  to  prostrate  the  State  governments  at  the 
feet  of  the  General  Government.  .  .  .  Upon  whom  bears  the 
duty  on  coarse  woolens,  and  linens,  and  blankets,  upon  salt,  and 
all  the  necessities  of  life?  On  poor  men  and  on  slave-holders. 

There  is  no  evidence,  so  far  as  I  know,  that  these  remarks 
were  sown  on  good  ground  and  soon  grew  in  Calhoun's  mind ; 
but  they  were  possibly  not  forgotten,  and  in  no  long  course 
of  years, —  when  the  younger  man  had  changed  and  had  come 
to  think  much  as  Randolph  had  so  much  earlier  thought  upon 
the  interests  of  the  South  in  all  these  matters, —  the  views  of 
his  older  colleague  evidently  came  to  mind,  and  he  probably 
felt  that  Randolph  had  in  general  been  right.  Indeed,  as  to 
the  latter 's  course  upon  the  first  outbreak  of  the  slavery 
trouble,  Calhoun  expressly  said  in  the  Senate  on  January  12, 
1838,  that  his  bitter  opposition  to  the  Missouri  Compromise 
might  have  resulted  in  crushing  abolition  at  its  birth,  and  then 

70  Quoted  at  pp.  180,  181,  ante.  Randolph's  speech  is  from  the  Annals 
of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1815-16,  pp.  840-42. 
Macon,  too,  pointed  out  the  danger  a  few  years  later.  "  If  Congress  can 
make  canals,"  he  wrote,  "they  can  with  more  propriety  emancipate." 
William  E.  Dodd's  "Nathaniel  Macon,"  pp.  310-11. 


224  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

went  on  that  he  himself  had  at  the  time  thought  Randolph 
"  too  unyielding,  too  uncompromising,  too  impracticable,  but 
had  been  taught  his  error  and  took  pleasure  in  acknowledging 
it."  " 

In  1837,  too,  when  his  later  beliefs  had  pretty  well  taken 
shape,  Calhoun  said 78  in  the  Senate  on  February  i8th,  in  op- 
position to  a  resolution  for  the  purchase  of  the  Madison  manu- 
scripts, that  he  "  admitted  that  when  a  young  man,  and  at  his 
entrance  upon  political  life,  he  had  been  inclined  to  that  in- 
terpretation of  the  constitution  which  favored  a  latitude  of 
powers,  but  experience,  observation  and  reflection  had  wrought 
a  great  change  in  his  views;  and,  above  all,  the  transcendent 
argument  of  Mr.  Madison  himself,  in  his  celebrated  resolu- 
tions of  1798,  had  done  more  than  all  other  things  to  con- 
vince him  of  his  error." 

In  very  late  life,  too,  he  had  clearly  come  to  think  that  a 
national  bank, —  one  of  which  he  had  done  so  much  to  cre- 
ate,—  was  a  most  undesirable  agency  for  us.  He  wrote 79 
near  the  close  of  his  days,  referring  to  the  first  bank  and  pos- 
sibly thinking  also  of  the  second,  and  with  evident  approval, 
that  Jefferson  "  took  strong  positions  against  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  and  laid  the  foundations  for  its  final  over- 
throw " ;  and  again  that  "  it  was  due  to  the  Democratic  party, 
to  say  that  they  are  "  entitled  to  the  credit  of  putting  down  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States."  80  Finally,  when  in  this  same 
writing  he  considers  the  centralizing  tendencies  of  the  War 
of  1812  and  refers  to  how  largely  it  contributed  to  drive  us 
away  from  the  earlier  and  sounder  Republican  system,  one 
cannot  help  supposing  that  he  had  in  mind  the  influence  of 
that  war  upon  his  own  beliefs  and  actions.81 

"  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  185. 

78  "  Congressional  Debates,"  Vol.  XIII,  Part  I,  1836-37,  p.  866. 

79  "  Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Government  of  the  United  States," 
"  Works,"  Vol.  I,  p.  359. 

•°/Mrf.,p.  371- 

«  Ibid.,  pp.  361-364. 


CHAPTER  X 
IN  MONROE'S  CABINET 

Secretary  of  War  —  Internal  Improvements  —  Cabinet  Dis- 
cussions —  Missouri  Compromise  —  Party  Politics  —  Rip- 
Rap  Contract  Investigation  —  Political  Calumny  —  The  Tar- 
iff —  South  Carolina  Politics  —  Calhoun's  Home. 

WHEN,  after  the  close  of  the  Fourteenth  Congress  on  March 
3,  1817,  Calhoun  once  more  returned  South  to  his  home,  he 
bore  with  him  a  reputation  such  as  few  men  of  thirty-five 
attain.  He  ranked,  beyond  doubt,  among  the  very  first  of 
the  leaders  in  Congress  and  was  favorably  known  far  and 
wide  throughout  the  country.  Coming  to  Washington  but  six 
years  before,  quite  unknown  except  to  the  rather  small  circle 
of  his  home,  he  had  steadily  grown  both  as  an  orator  and 
political  manager,  and  a  great  future  seemed  to  lie  before 
him.  He  was,  moreover,  already  a  member-elect  of  the  Fif- 
teenth Congress,  having  been  triumphantly  chosen  in  spite  of 
the  opposition  caused  by  his  vote  on  the  Compensation  Bill. 
All  the  probabilities  seemed  to  indicate  that  he  would  remain 
in  the  halls  of  Congress  and  continue  to  develop  in  the  spe- 
cial line  in  which  he  had  achieved  such  marked  success.  But 
the  Fates  had  another  lot  in  store  for  him. 

Monroe  was  inaugurated  as  President  on  March  4,  1817, 
and  had  at  first  designed  to  select  his  cabinet  in  such  a  way  as 
to  have  each  one  of  the  great  sections  of  the  country  repre- 
sented ;  but  the  plan  was  found  difficult  to  carry  out  and  was 
in  the  end  to  some  extent  abandoned.  He  began  by  filling 
only  three  of  the  portfolios ;  taking  Adams  from  the  East  for 
the  State  Department,  Crawford  from  the  South  for  the  Treas- 
ury, and  Isaac  Shelby  of  Kentucky  for  the  War  Office.  The 
latter  position  had  been  already  offered  to  Clay,  but  had  been 
refused,  apparently  with  some  anger,  as  Clay  wanted  to  be 

225 


226  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Secretary  of  State,  with  an  eye  to  the  succession.  Jackson, 
too,  had  been  thought  of  before  Shelby  but  had  soon  intimated 
a  desire  not  to  be  nominated. 

Shelby,  who  was  an  old  man,  declined  the  appointment, 
and  the  War  Office  was  temporarily  filled  by  George  Graham, 
—  long  its  chief  clerk.  In  the  fall  Monroe  tendered  it  in  turn 
to  Lowndes,  who  had  been  asked  by  Madison  late  in  his  ad- 
ministration to  accept  the  same  place.  Lowndes  also  de- 
clined, however;  and  then  Monroe  thought  of  Calhoun  and 
of  General  John  Williams  of  Tennessee.  The  choice  fell 
upon  Calhoun,  and  the  portfolio  was  offered  to  him  by  letter 
of  October  10,  and  accepted  by  the  next  mail  in  a  letter  dated 
November  i.1 

In  later  years  there  was  a  controversy  as  to  how  Calhoun Js 
appointment  had  come  about,  Crawford,  or  his  friends,  seem- 
ing to  claim  that  it  was  due  in  the  main  to  Crawford's  advice; 
but  there  is  little  doubt  as  to  the  real  facts.  In  the  troubled 
times  of  the  war,  Calhoun  had  shown  much  interest  in  mili- 
tary affairs  and  had  been  very  close  to  Monroe,  who  was  Sec- 
retary of  War  for  some  months  after  the  fall  of  Washington 
in  1814;  and  it  must  be  that  he  then  exhibited  some  qualities 
that  led  both  Monroe  and  army  officers  to  feel  kindly  toward 
him.  Monroe  once  stated  to  Calhoun  that  during  his  tour  of 
inspection  in  the  summer  of  1817  he  had  "  found  a  very  gen- 
eral desire  among  the  principal  officers  that  I  [Calhoun]  should 
be  appointed  Secretary  " ;  and  this,  coupled  with  that  "  long 
and  intimate  personal  acquaintance  formed  under  the  most 
trying  circumstances," —  of  which  Calhoun  writes  in  his  let- 
ters of  December  9,  1827,  to  Monroe, —  was  doubtless  the 
real  cause  for  the  selection  being  made,  as  soon  as  desired 
political  combinations  permitted.2 

*"  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  p.  131;  Hunt's  "Writings  of  Madison," 
Vol.  VIII,  pp.  369-71 ;  "  Writings  of  Monroe,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  4,  5 ;  J.  Q- 
Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  15,  70,  71,  73 ;  Schurz's  "  Clay,"  Vol.  I, 
p.  141.  Clay  had  been  offered  the  War  Office  by  Madison  in  the  summer 
of  1816.  "Letters,  etc.,  of  Madison,"  1865,  Vol.  IV,  p.  556.  I  presume 
that  John  Williams  of  Tennessee,  Colonel  of  the  3Qth  Infantry  is  the 
"  Gen.  Williams  "  in  question.  Monroe  says  nothing  of  his  having  been 
under  consideration,  but  Calhoun  does. 

2 "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp.  251-254 ;  and  see  Monroe's  answer 
of  December  16,  in  "  The  Writings  of  James  Monroe,"  Vol.  VII,  pp.  136, 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  227 

As  Calhoun' s  official  appointment  bears  date  the  8th  of  Oc- 
tober, it  is  likely  that  he  had  already  been  sounded  in  some  way. 
Inherent  probability,  too,  points  to  the  same  conclusion,  and 
he  writes  in  his  "  Autobiography "  that  he  consulted  with 
friends  before  accepting  the  offer.  Lowndes  and  the  friends 
generally  advised  against  his  acceptance,  on  the  ground  that 
Congress  was  the  true  field  for  his  talents  and  that  it  was 
there  that  his  mental  powers  would  be  specially  useful.  They 
seem  to  have  doubted  his  fitness  for  an  executive  office,  but 
Calhoun  felt  a  conviction  that  this  was  an  error  and  decided 
that  he  could  successfully  take  up  the  very  practical  and  ex- 
ceedingly difficult  task  of  bringing  order  out  of  the  chaos  that 
had  long  prevailed  in  the  department  tendered  him.  He  was 
succeeded3  in  the  House  by  Eldred  Simkins,  who  was  long 
a  friend  in  South  Carolina. 

The  United  States  War  Office  was  then  in  a  lamentable 
condition  for  a  people  just  engaged  in  war  with  one  of  the 
most  powerful  nations  on  earth.  All  through  the  contest  the 
portfolio  had  been  indeed  a  most  difficult  problem,  and  Mon- 
roe himself  had  filled  it  for  some  five  months  at  the  same  time 
that  he  was  also  acting  as  Secretary  of  State  in  Madison's 
Cabinet.  Upon  Monroe's  resignation  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment portion  of  these  double  duties,  General  Dearborn  had 
been  named  by  Madison;  but  the  Senate  rejected  the  appoint- 
ment, and  the  office  was  for  a  time  left  in  the  temporary 
charge  of  Crawford.  After  Monroe's  accession  to  the  Presi- 
dency, moreover,  it  still  remained  for  over  seven  months  with- 
out responsible  head  other  than  the  chief  clerk.  Indeed  from 
the  time  of  Monroe's  resignation  in  February,  1815,  until 
Calhoun  entered  upon  his  duties  in  December,  1817, —  a  pe- 
riod of  two  years  and  ten  months, —  there  was  never  a  head 
of  the  army  with  a  single  eye  to  its  interest.  Small  wonder 
that  with  such  a  history  there  was  no  control,  no  unity, — 

137.  Crawford  was  apparently  quite  sincere  in  thinking  that  Calhoun 
owed  the  appointment  to  him.  See  expression  in  his  entirely  private  let- 
ter of  1811;  Shipp's  "Crawford,"  p.  250.  Some  people  always  think  that 
their  lightest  words  accomplish  marvels. 

3  Charleston  "  Courier "  of  December  30,  1817.  Simkins  took  his  seat 
in  Congress  on  February  g,  1818. 


228  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

'  hardly  a  single  one  of  the  elements  essential  to  military  suc- 
cess. 

So  loose  was  the  management  that  hosts  of  unbalanced  and 
unsettled  accounts  stood  upon  the  books  of  the  department, 
their  total  actually  reaching  the  then  enormous  sum  ( for  our 
young  country)  of  forty-five  million  dollars.  There  was  not 
only  no  headship  in  the  office  but  the  duties  of  the  Secretary 
himself  were  quite  undefined,  and  his  actions,  as  will  shortly 
be  shown,  often  in  violation  of  all  military  rule.  With  such 
chaos  prevailing  at  the  centre,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
widely  scattered  army  was  in  hopeless  confusion.  It  is  with 
a  sense  of  blank  amazement,  and  with  wonder  that  we  ever 
emerged  from  the  War  of  1812  still  a  nation,  that  one  reads 
the  facts,  which  it  has  been  shown  4  Calhoun  had  brought  to 
the  attention  of  Congress  in  1814,  in  regard  to  the  complete 
lack  of  unity  in  our  army. 

But  there  were  by  this  time  both  army  men  and  other  offi- 
cials who  had  become  conscious  of  these  defects ;  and  it  is  no 
bold  surmise  to  assume  that  Calhoun  was  one  of  these.  The 
fact  that  he  introduced  the  resolution  that  brought  out  the 
lamentable  truth  of  the  matter,  probably  afer  discussion  with 
Monroe, —  who  was  then  acting  as  Secretary  of  War, —  indi- 
cates that  he  and  Monroe  appreciated  the  difficulty  and  de- 
signed to  correct  it ;  and  the  already  detailed  subsequent  reso- 
lution he  introduced  for  the  creation  of  a  Board  of  Officers 
to  prepare  rules  and  regulations  for  field  service  points  the 
same  way.  He  wanted,  too,  at  the  same  time  to  inquire  into 
and  to  change  the  then  prevailing  and  most  inefficient  mode 
of  supplying  our  armies  by  contract.  Nothing  seems  to  have 
come  of  these  efforts,  and  probably  the  matters  were  forgot- 
ten when  peace  soon  followed.  The  difficulties  continued  to 
exist  and  came  later  under  Calhoun's  more  direct  control  as 
head  of  the  War  Department. 

One  other  element  contributing  to  the  confusion  and  to 
its  cure  must  be  mentioned.  Men  given  to  bold  and  hot-headed 
ways  not  infrequently  accomplish  great  ends,  if  their  charac- 
ter or  the  surrounding  circumstances  be  such  that  they  must 

*Antf,  pp.  315,  216. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  229 

be  listened  to.  Jackson  was  eminently  a  man  of  this  type. 
When  any  one  trod  on  his  toes,  personal  or  official,  trouble 
was  sure  to  follow,  and  he  was  so  often  right  on  the  main 
question  that  he  carried  his  point  in  many  instances.  It  has 
been  said  that  the  actions  of  our  Secretaries  of  War  in  these 
early  days  were  often  in  violation  of  all  military  rule.  Thus, 
they  had  a  practice  of  sending  vital  orders  direct  to  some  sub- 
ordinate officer,  instead  of  through  his  official  superior, —  even 
going  so  far  as  to  detach  the  subordinate  and  send  him  far 
away,  without  the  superior's  knowledge. 

An  instance  in  point  occurred  in  Jackson's  command  in 
1814  and  led  to  a  vigorous  remonstrance  on  his  part.  Again, 
in  1817,  orders  were  issued  from  the  Department  to  one  of 
his  subordinates,  without  his  being  so  much  as  informed  of 
the  fact,  and  he  then  "  resolved  to  settle  the  difficulty  in  his 
own  way."  The  method  he  adopted  was  not  very  suave,  but 
at  least  it  brought  matters  to  a  head  and  was  in  the  end  effec- 
tive. He  issued  of  his  own  motion  an  order  to  his  command, 
—  dated  April  22,  1817, —  directing  the  officers  under  him 
to  refuse  in  the  future  to  obey  such  behests  of  the  War  Of- 
fice; and  when,  before  long,  this  order  of  his  was  obeyed  by 
a  subordinate  and  a  command  direct  from  the  department  was 
not  carried  out,  Jackson  wrote  to  the  President  on  August 
12,  1817,  assuming  all  responsibility  for  the  "proper  disobedi- 
ence "  of  his  subordinate.  Here  was  a  serious  issue  with  a 
general  of  boundless  popularity. 

When  Calhoun  took  up  the  duties  of  his  new  position  on 
December  8,5  1817,  this  dispute  with  Jackson  must  have  been 
one  of  the  first  questions  to  call  for  decision.  It  is  evident 
that  Monroe  in  the  main  sided  with  the  department  and 
against  Jackson  in  the  matter,  but  he  says  he  wanted  to  shield 
the  general,  and  possibly  he  was  anxious  to  avoid  a  quarrel 
with  a  leading  officer;  so  the  matter  was  shortly  settled  by  a 
rule,  which  doubtless  had  the  approval  of  the  President  as 

5 The  Charleston  "Courier"  of  December  17,  1817,  quotes  from  the 
Washington  "  Gazette  "of  the  pth  an  item  to  the  effect  that  Calhoun 
"  was  yesterday  qualified  and  entered  upon  his  duties " ;  see  also  Mc- 
Duffie's  "  Statement  in  the  Mix  Investigation,"  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol. 
XXXI,  p.  405.  Calhoun  had  arrived  in  Washington  on  December  2nd. 
"Courier"  of  December  13. 


23o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

well  as  of  the  new  Secretary,  to  the  effect  that  in  future  all 
orders  should  issue  to  the  commanders  of  divisions,  except 
in  extraordinary  cases,  and  then  the  commander  should  at 
once  be  notified.  Jackson  had  carried  his  point,  and  his  vio- 
lent and  hot-headed  method  had  led  to  the  correction  of  a 
great  abuse.6 

One  or  two  other  matters  of  importance,  which  occurred 
shortly  before  Calhoun  took  charge  of  his  office,  must  be  men- 
tioned. On  April  24,  1816,  a  statute  was  passed  to  organize 
what  was  called  the  "  general  staff,"  but  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  these  words  had  then  quite  a  different  meaning 
from  either  that  which  they  came  to  bear  in  a  very  few  years 
or  that  which  belongs  to  them  to-day.  The  new  law  was  in 
the  main  based  on  the  prior  one  of  March  3,  1815,  and  pro- 
vided (e.g.)  for  a  Quartermaster  General  and  necessary  as- 
sistants in  each  division.  The  idea  of  one  Quartermaster 
General,  one  Commissary  General,  and  so  on  for  the  whole 
army  with  subordinates  in  the  divisions,  responsible  to  the 
head  of  the  particular  branch,  had  not  yet  found  expression. 
The  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  at  this  time  was  Major- 
General  Jacob  Brown,  who  had  been  named  on  June  15,  1815, 
and  continued  to  hold  the  office  until  his  death,  February  24, 
1828.  He  was  a  Quaker  and  had  been  a  schoolmaster  in 
Bucks  County,  Pennsylvania,  but  showed  himself  to  be  a  most 
efficient  officer  and  would  doubtless  be  better  remembered  to- 
day but  that  the  brilliance  of  Jackson's  achievement  at  New 
Orleans  led  to  the  eclipse  of  his  brother  officers. 

One  other  important  step  had  been  taken  in  1816  in  our 
military  organization.  Madison  7  had  called  out  from  France 
and  named  as  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Army  Simon  Bernard, 
who  had  been  an  aide-de-camp  and  prominent  officer  of  en- 

6  Parton's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  375,  376.    "  The  Military  Policy  of  the 
United  States/'  by  Major  General  Emory  Upton,  published  by  the  Govern- 
ment, 1904,  pp.  145,  146.    "  Writings  of  James  Monroe,"  Vol.  VII,  pp.  141, 
143.    The  dispute  with  Jackson  arose  out  of  an  order  issued  by  Chief  Clerk 
Graham  detaching  the  officer  in  question   without  notice.     Jackson  was 
much  pleased  at  the  method  of  its  settlement  by  Calhoun's  order:  Narra- 
tive by  Wrn.  B.  Lewis  in  Parton's  "Jackson,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  311. 

7  It  was  often  said  that  Calhoun  had  caused   General  Bernard  to  be 
sent  for,  but  such  was  not  the  case.    "Congressional  Debates,"  Vol.  XI, 
Part  I,  1834-35,  p.  609- 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  231 

gineers  under  Napoleon.  This  was  not  done  without  causing 
serious  dissatisfaction  among  our  own  officers,  but  the  emi- 
nent Frenchman  long  held  his  position  with  us  and  rendered 
most  valuable  service.  Like  so  many  of  his  countrymen,  he 
returned  later  to  his  native  land  and  died  there. 

Such  was  approximately  the  condition  of  the  War  Office 
when  Calhoun  took  charge.  Everything  lay  before  him  to 
learn.  We  are  told  by  his  "  Autobiography  "  that  he  had 
paid  but  little  attention  to  military  matters  and  had  never  read 
a  treatise  on  the  subject,  except  a  small  volume  on  the  staff. 
What  he  did  know  must  have  been  acquired  through  touch 
with  the  department  during  the  war,  and  this  can  have  been 
but  little  and  had,  of  course,  placed  him  under  no  responsibil- 
ity. To  add  to  his  troubles,  he  took  charge  at  the  very  time 
when  Congress  was  coming  together  and  was  sure  to  throw 
at  him  a  thousand  requests  for  information  far  easier  to  ask 
than  to  answer,  while  members  must  have  been  forever  be- 
sieging him  with  propositions  of  every  kind  on  behalf  of  their 
constituents. 

In  addition  to  these  difficulties,  the  long-time  chief  clerk, 
George  Graham,  resigned  at  this  very  time,8  and  the  new  Sec- 
retary was  thus  deprived  of  the  aid  of  his  great  experience. 
Major  Christopher  Van  Deventer,  who  was  selected  in  his 
place,  was  without  experience  in  the  office,  but  had  been  in 
the  army  from  1809  to  1816  and  had  held  the  position  of  dep- 
uty Quartermaster  General  from  March,  1813,  to  June,  1815. 
During  most  of  this  time,  however,  he  was  confined  in  Can- 
ada9 as  a  hostage,  so  that  he  had  apparently  had  but  little 
experience  in  war,  but  he  became  a  most  efficient  chief  clerk, 
as  well  as  a  life-long  friend  and  supporter  of  Calhoun.  The 
official  position  he  occupied  in  the  War  Office  was  one  of  a 
very  confidential  nature  and  corresponded  with  that  nowa- 
days known  as  Assistant  Secretary.10 

The  new  head  determined, —  so  we  are  told  in  the  "  Auto- 

8  "  Autobiography,"  p.  25;  Charleston  "Courier"  of  December  17,  1817. 

9  Van   Deventer's   own   statement  before  the   Investigating   Committee 
of  1822  upon  the  Rip  Rap  Contract,  printed  in  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol. 
XXII,  p.  262. 

10  Mr.  Gaillard  Hunt  in  his  "Life  of  Calhoun,"  pp.  45,  46. 


232  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

biography," — to  do  as  little  as  possible  for  the  time  but  to 
listen  and  observe  closely  until  he  could  gain  a  knowledge  of 
the  actual  state  of  the  department  and  its  needs.  Even  thus, 
however,  plenty  of  work  was  found  by  him  during  these  days 
of  observation,  and  he  writes  that  not  less  than  fourteen  or 
fifteen  hours  of  severe  labor  were  necessary  to  get  through 
with  the  daily  duties.11  Near  the  end  of  December,  he  had 
to  make  a  report 12  to  the  President,  in  order  to  enable  the 
latter  to  comply  with  a  House  resolution  of  December  nth; 
but  it  was  not  a  very  elaborate  document  and  merely  gave  de- 
tails of  the  strength  of  the  army,  and  went  on  to  state  that 
the  force  was  sufficient  to  keep  the  fortifications  in  a  state  of 
preservation,  but  wholly  inadequate  for  defense  against  regu- 
lar attack. 

To  this  the  report  added, —  thus  showing  that  a  design  was 
already  afoot  in  which  the  Secretary  was  very  active  later 
on? —  that  "  a  board  of  the  most  skillful  officers  in  our  serv- 
ice had  been  constituted  to  examine  the  whole  line  of  our 
frontier,  and  to  determine  on  the  position  and  extent  of  works 
that  may  be  necessary  to  the  defense  of  the  country. "  Upon 
this  subject  Calhoun  asserted  in  1838,  in  the  course  of  an 
angry  debate  with  Webster  that  he  had  projected  and  com- 
menced the  system  of  fortifications  for  the  defense  of  our 
harbors,  but  only  three  years  before  he  had  said  that  he  was 
not  "the  author  of  the  system  of  fortifications.  .  .  .  They 
were  commenced  in  1816,  under  General  Bernard,  who  was 
called  from  France  by  the  preceding  administration  to  super- 
intend the  erection  of  fortifications."  13  He  was,  beyond 
doubt,  at  least  a  main  factor  in  continuing  them. 

But  the  session  of  Congress  did  not  go  by  without  the  enact- 
ment into  law  of  a  conception  of  the  utmost  moment,  and  in- 

11 "  Autobiography,"  pp.  25,  30. 

12 "Report  to  President,"  dated  December  22,  1817,  American  State 
Papers,  Military  Affairs,  Vol.  I,  p.  669,  et  seq. 

13  Speeches  in  the  Senate  on  February  24,  1835  ("  Congressional  De 
bates,"  Vol.  X,  Part  I,  1834-35,  P-  609),  and  on  March  22,  1838  ("Con- 
gressional Globe,"  Twenty-Fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  Appendix,  p. 
246).  Monroe  had  written  on  February  22,  1815,  in  a  Report  to  Con- 
gress ("Writings,"  Vol.  V,  p.  325)  :  "It  seems  to  be  our  duty  to  fortify 
our  coast  in  such  a  manner  as  to  afford  protection  to  our  principal 
cities,  harbors  and  even  to  our  great  bays  and  inlets." 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  233 

deed  Calhoun  must  have  been  actively  engaged  on  this  mat- 
ter within  two  months  of  taking  charge  of  his  office.  What 
seems  to  have  led  to  it  was  a  marked  case  of  failure  in  the 
then  system  of  supplying  our  armies  by  local  contracts.  Dur- 
ing the  operations  against  the  Seminoles,  the  contractor  had 
failed, —  as  not  infrequently  happened, —  to  deliver  the  re- 
quired articles  at  the  places  directed,  and  "  the  situation  [of 
the  army]  had  become  well-nigh  desperate."  Williams,  the 
Chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  on 
January  21,  1818,  moved  a  resolution  calling  for  information 
upon  this  subject,  to  which  Monroe  answered  on  the  3Oth  by 
a  report  from  Calhoun  setting  forth  the  contract  and  the  con- 
tractor's failure.  Meanwhile  Tichenor  had  offered  resolu- 
tions in  the  Senate  (January  22nd)  looking  to  the  abolition 
of  hospital  surgeons  and  some  other  grades,  on  the  ground 
of  economy.  It  will  be  found  that  the  bill  later  passed  was 
urged  to  no  little  extent  on  the  plea  of  saving  expense,  and 
it  was  called  An  Act  to  Reduce  the  Staff. 

But  before  any  bill  was  even  introduced  there  were  some 
very  important  conferences  between  the  Secretary  of  War  and 
Williams,  in  which  the  former  broached  that  idea  of  placing 
one  chief  officer  of  high  rank  at  the  head  of  certain  branches 
of  the  staff,  which  soon  resulted  in  bureau  or  departmental  ad- 
ministration. Under  the  system  prevailing  in  our  army  down 
to  that  date,  each  separate  command  had  a  chief  Commissary, 
Surgeon,  Judge  Advocate,  etc.,  but  there  was  no  supreme  head 
of  the  particular  department  to  whom  all  its  members  were 
subordinate  and  to  whom  they  reported.  So  far  as  appears, 
the  change, —  by  which  one  officer  was  to  be  put  at  the  head 
of  a  department  and  made  responsible  for  its  conduct, —  was 
first  broached  by  Calhoun  in  his  conversations  upon  the  sub- 
ject with  Williams.14  Fortunately  for  us,  he  summed  up  his 
ideas  in  a  letter  to  Williams  under  date  of  February  5,  1818. 
In  this  he  wrote: 

14  "  The  Army  of  the  United  States  "  by  Theo.  F.  Rodenbaugh  and  Wm. 
L.  Haskins,  p.  50 ;  and  Thomas  H.  S.  Hamersly's  "  Complete  Regular 
Army  Register  of  the  United  States,"  1779-1879,  p.  244,  both  speak  of  the 
reforms  then  created  as  originating  with  Calhoun.  See  also  General 
Emory  Upton's  "Military  Policy  of  the  United  States,"  pp.  149-151. 


234  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Feeling  as  I  do  the  importance  of  a  well  regulated  staff,  I  re- 
gret that  want  of  minute  knowledge  in  relation  to  it,  which 
would  enable  me  to  state  my  ideas  with  great  decision,  both  as 
to  the  present  system,  and  such  amendments  as  it  may  be  sus- 
ceptible of. 

If  the  Committee  should  think  that  so  much  of  the  act  of  1816, 
as  creates  the  offices  of  Hospital  Surgeons  and  Hospital  sur- 
geon's mates,  and  judge  advocates,  ought  to  be  repealed,  I  would 
suggest  the  propriety  of  creating  in  lieu  of  them,  the  offices  of 
Surgeon  General  and  Judge  Advocate  general.  I  have  already 
offered  to  you  my  ideas  in  relation  to  them  in  conversation,  and 
now  will  only  briefly  restate  them.  The  medical  staff  is  at  pres- 
ent without  responsibility;  and  must,  I  conceive,  remain  so  till 
its  duties  are  brought  to  a  centre.  To  introduce  responsibility, 
it  should  be  the  duty  of  the  surgeons  of  the  Army,  to  make  quar- 
terly return  of  the  manner  in  which  they  have  performed  their 
duties.  These  returns  ought  among  other  particulars  to  contain 
a  list  of  the  sick,  their  disease,  the  prescriptions  and  issues  of 
medical  stores.  It  must  be  apparent  that  there  ought  to  be  a 
medical  character  of  eminence,  to  report  to  the  Head  of  Depart- 
ment on  these  returns.  .  .  .  The  Judge  Advocate  general  would  be 
the  adviser  of  the  Department,  in  all  cases  touching  martial  laws ; 
and  would  in  important  trials  be  ordered  to  act  as  Judge  advocate. 
.  .  .  The  Quarter  master's  Department  may,  I  conceive,  be  ren- 
dered more  simple  and  efficient.  I  would  suggest  the  propriety 
of  one  quarter  master  general,  with  one  deputy  for  each  division 
and  as  many  assistants  as  the  same  may  require.  No  branch  of 
the  general  staff  is  more  important  or  difficult  to  be  managed 
than  the  quarter  master's ;  none  requires  more  eminently  the  con- 
trol of  a  single  and  responsible  head.  .  .  . 

On  the  1 8th  of  February,  Williams  brought  in  a  bill  "  to 
reduce  the  staff,"  which  was  based  on  these  ideas  of  Calhoun, 
but  there  was  one  other  suggestion  of  great  moment  made  in 
the  Senate.  On  the  same  day  when  the  bill  was  presented, 
James  Barbour  of  Virginia  offered  resolutions  in  regard  to  sub- 
stituting a  cheaper  and  more  effective  mode  of  supplying  the 
army  by  subjecting  those  undertaking  the  duty  to  military 
law,15  and  this  was  approved  by  the  Senate.  Later  this  pro- 

15  It  will  be  remembered  that  while  in  the  House  Calhoun  had  sug- 
gested a  change  in  the  method  of  supplying  the  army;  but  there  is  noth- 
ing to  show  what  system  he  wanted  to  adopt.  Ante,  p.  215. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  235 

posed  amendment  and  another  were  referred  back  to  the  Com- 
mittee; and  they  again  reported  the  bill,  on  March  20,  with 
a  section  embodying  Barbour's  suggestion.  The  bill  was 
finally  passed  by  the  Senate  on  March  26  and  sent  to  the 
House. 

The  "  Autobiography  "  tells  us  that  the  scheme  was  de- 
nounced as  wild  and  impracticable,  and  in  the  House  (the  de- 
bate in  the  Senate  is  hardly  reported  at  all)  there  were  at 
least  two  members  who  spoke  against  it, —  Colston  and 
Desha.  The  measure  passed,  however,  on  April  8th,  with 
amendments  of  no  great  moment,  which  were  agreed  to  in 
the  Senate  on  the  same  day,  and  the  bill  was  then  approved 
by  the  President  on  April  I4th.  The  prophets  of  evil  were 
certainly  wrong  as  to  this  measure,  but  it  was  beyond  ques- 
tion a  radical  change.  Probably,  it  was  for  this  reason  that 
the  law  was  limited  by  its  terms  to  the  period  of  five  years.16 

The  new  statute  thus  passed  introduced  for  the  first  time 
in  our  history  the  idea  of  unity  of  control  in  the  staff.  In 
several  branches  an  officer  of  high  grade  was  to  be  placed  at 
the  head  of  the  particular  department, —  a  man  who  should 
be  responsible  for  its  proper  management  and  to  whom  all 
those  employed  in  it  should  be  directly  subordinate.  The  old 
contract  system,  by  which  separate  contracts  were  made  in 
each  command  with  a  result  similar  to  that  in  the  Seminole 
case,  was  done  away  with  and  the  modern  subsistence  depart- 
ment established,  with  purchase  by  a  central  bureau.  A  Com- 
missary-General, a  Surgeon-General,  and  a  Quartermaster 
General  were  by  its  terms  all  created  for  the  first  time.  Large 
discretion  as  to  the  necessary  regulations  for  all  this  new  ma- 
chinery was  left  to  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  President. 

In  carrying  out  the  law  great  care  was  taken  in  the  selec- 
tion of  the  various  heads.  Colonel  Gibson  was  named  Com- 
missary-General;  General  Jesup,  Quartermaster-General,  and 
Dr.  Joseph  Lovell,  Surgeon-General.  Nor,  by  these  selec- 
tions, was  the  work  more  than  begun;  but  the  new  officers, 

16  For  the  progress  of  this  measure  through  Congress,  see  "  Annals  of 
Congress,"  Fifteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1817-18,  Vol.  I,  pp.  119,  129, 
131,  160,  210,  211,  213,  268,  273,  289,  290,  293,  350:  ibid.,  II,  pp.  1568,  1687, 
1687,  1690,  1692. 


236  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

doubtless  more  than  the  Secretary  himself,  became  at  once 
actively  engaged  in  organizing  the  bureaus  under  them. 
Jesup  soon  submitted  to  Calhoun  a  projet  of  the  nature  and 
functions  of  the  office  in  his  charge,  and  doubtless  the  other 
heads  must  have  done  the  same  thing.  These  were  then  pub- 
lished with  the  force  of  law  by  the  Secretary  and  President, 
and  the  new  departments  entered  on  their  history,  destined  to 
survive  in  the  main  the  war  with  Mexico,  the  Civil  War,  the 
Spanish  flurry  and  then  merely  to  be  modified  by  a  further 
extension  of  the  principle  of  unity  of  control.17 
^  The  main  idea  of  the  plan  to  form  bureaus  at  Washington 
•under  the  supreme  direction  of  one  head  and  in  close  touch 
P  with  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  thus  secure  energy  and 
promptness,  seems  18  to  have  been  realized  at  the  time  of  the 
law's  enactment;  and  in  a  few  years  after  its  origin  the  sys- 
tern  was  extended  to  cover  all  branches  of  the  staff,  and  ere 
long  the  head  of  the  army 19  as  well  as  the  heads  of  the  vari- 
ous  bureaus  were  all  centered  in  Washington,  "  thus  bring- 
ing," so  wrote  Calhoun  in  1822, 20  "  the  military  administra- 
tion of  the  army,  as  well  as  its  pecuniary,  through  the  several 
subordinate  branches,  under  the  immediate  inspection  and  con- 
trol of  the  Government.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the 
arrangement  will  be  highly  useful."  This  was  in  close  ac- 
cord with  the  view  he  had  expressed21  in  1820  that  the  true 
principle  was  that  "  every  distinct  branch  of  the  staff  should 
terminate  in  a  chief,  to  be  stationed,  at  least  in  peace,  near 
the  seat  of  Government,  and  to  be  made  responsible  for  its 
condition." 

It  is  of  course  impossible  to  ascertain  with  accuracy  from 
whose  mind  these  really  great  improvements  came,  and  doubt- 

17  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp.  137,  140,  141.  Rodenbaugh  and  Has- 
kins's  "Army  of  the  United  States,"  pp.  50-52,  74,  75,  87,  106,  113,  351. 
Hamersly's  "  Army  Register,"  pp.  244,  329. 

"  "  National  Intelligencer,"  as  quoted  in  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XIV, 
p.  224  (May  23,  1818). 

19  John  Quincy  Adams  ("Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  31)  tells  us  that  the 
Major-General  of  the  army  was  fixed  to  reside  at  Washington  by  the 
General  Orders  of  May  17,  1821,  issued  in  pursuance  of  the  Act  of  March 
2,  1821,  for  the  reduction  of  the  army. 

20  Report  of  Dec.  3,  1822",  on  the  Condition  of  the  Military  Establish- 
ments and  Fortifications,  "  Works,"  Vol.  V,  p.  123. 

21  Report  of  December  12,  1820,  "  Works,"  V,  p.  85. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  237 

less  the  truth  is  that  many  men  contributed  to  them.  Cal- 
houn's  lack  of  military  training  makes  it  highly  unlikely  that 
the  whole  credit  can  be  his ;  but  there  is  every  appearance  that 
he  had  a  far  larger  share  in  the  matter  than  belonged  to  his 
mere  functions  as  Secretary,22  and  there  is  at  least  no  shadow 
of  doubt  but  that  he  filled  those  functions  to  the  full.  Hear- 
ing and  comparing,  and  then  rejecting  or  adopting,  the  views 
of  the  technically  educated  men  around  him,  he  certainly  was 
a  chief  factor  in  the  selection  of  a  good  plan  from  the  many 
opinions  advanced  and  then  in  securing  its  legal  sanction  and 
in  putting  into  form  the  thousand  details  necessary  to  apply 
it  in  practice. 

He  wrote  to  a  correspondent  in  1823  "  Our  military  organ- 
ization, and  system  of  instruction,  tho'  not  the  same  as  either 
the  French,  or  English,  yet  are  based  substantially  on  the 
same  principles.  What  we  have  done  is  to  modify  and  apply 
them  to  the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  placed."  23  And 
in  later  years  he  said24  that  his  hand  had  drawn  the  Act  of 
1818  by  which  the  change  was  first  introduced,  and  also  that 
which  required  that  accounts, —  instead  of  going  as  thereto- 
fore direct  to  the  Treasury  Department,  without  passing 
through  the  War  Department, —  should  all  first  be  endorsed 
by  the  head  of  the  proper  bureau  and  then  be  sent  to  the  Chief 
of  the  War  Department  for  final  approval. 

One  hint  of  the  origin  of  the  plan  is  to  be  found  in  a  letter 
to  Calhoun  of  later  years.  According  to  Virgil  Maxcy,25 
Major  Van  Deventer,  the  chief  clerk  in  the  War  Office,  was 
the  first  to  suggest  the  idea,  and  Calhoun  availed  himself  of 

22  John  Quincy  Adams's  opinion  of  1828  ("Diary,"  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  446, 
447),  that  Calhoun  "had  no  more  share  of  mind  in  them  [the  improve- 
ments in  military  matters  during  his  Secretaryship]   than  I  have  in  the 
Acts  of  Congress  to  which  I  affix  my  signature  of  approbation,"  may  in 
my  opinion  be   disregarded   as  due  almost  entirely  to  the  bitterness  of 
Adams's  then  feelings  in  general  and  particularly  against  Calhoun. 

23  "  Correspondence,"  p*.  212. 

24 "  Autobiography,"  p.  25.  See  also  speech  in  Senate  in  1838  in 
answer  to  Clay:  "Congressional  Globe,"  Second  Session,  Twenty-fifth 
Congress,  "Appendix,"  181,  or  Benton's  "View,"  Vol.  II,  p.  112.  "Con- 
gressional Globe,"  Thirtieth  Congress,  First  Session,  pp.  697,  698,  704-707. 
I  am  unable  to  find  any  Act  of  Congress  containing  regulations  for  the 
disposition  of  accounts,  and  presume  that  they  were  probably  contained 
in  some  departmental  order. 

25  Calhoun  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  791-93. 


238  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  suggestion  and  recommended  it  to  Congress  before  th< 
arrival  of  Generals  Brown  and  Jesup  in  Washington.  On  th< 
other  hand,  these  two  officers,  both  highly  capable  men,  seen 
to  have  claimed  a  good  deal  of  the  credit  for  themselves. 

Brown,  in  particular,  before  a  Congressional  Committee 
in  i827,26  made  light  of  the  claims  of  the  "  civil  gentlemen/ 
and  said  that  the  "  improvements  suggested  themselves  to  th< 
officers  of  the  army:  they  communicated  them  to  Mr.  Cal 
houn,  who  perceived  their  importance  and  utility,  and  adoptee 
and  embodied  them,  and  was  the  organ,  if  I  may  so  call  it 
of  making  them  known.  I  have  never  understood,  nor  do  " 
believe  Mr.  Calhoun  claimed  any  great  merit  or  applause  foi 
his  agency  in  the  business."  Brown  rather  seems,  however 
later  on  in  his  testimony,  to  admit  that  Calhoun  was  entitlec 
to  much  of  the  credit  for  the  change  in  the  Commissary  De 
partment,  and  he  specially  emphasizes  the  services  in  the  whol( 
matter  of  General  John  Williams,  the  chairman  of  the  Senate 
Military  Committee. 

General  Jesup,  in  his  testimony27  in  the  same  matter,  wa; 
more  liberal  to  Calhoun  and  said  he  believed  that  the  ther 
organization  of  the  army  was  the  result  of  one  or  more  con 
ferences  between  the  Secretary  of  War  and  some  members  o1 
the  Senate  Military  Committee;  but  later  on  he  seems  at  firs1 
blush  to  assert  of  the  bill,  which  became  a  law:  "  I  put  [it] 
into  form,  at  the  request  of  Colonel  Williams  and  Colone 
Trimble,  from  memoranda  furnished  by  them."  But  the  ap- 
parent contradiction  of  Calhoun  in  this  statement  is  made 
clear  by  the  fact, —  which  becomes  evident  on  more  carefu 
inspection, —  that  Jesup  referred  to  the  later  act  of  1821  foi 
the  reduction  of  the  Army  and  not  at  all  to  the  initial  one  oi 
1818,  which  inaugurated  the  changes.  Of  this  law  he  ex- 
pressly said  that  he  believed  it  was  the  result  of  the  com- 
bined efforts  of  the  Secretary  of  War  and  of  Colonel  Wil- 
liams of  the  Senate. 
\  Both  Brown  and  Jesup  admitted  the  high  value  of  Cal- 

26  House  Committee  appointed  by  the  House  on  December  29,  1826 
on  a  letter  of  Vice  President  Calhoun  asking  for  an  investigation  of  his 
conduct  while  Secretary  of  War.  House  Report,  No.  79,  Nineteenll 
Congress,  Second  Session,  pp.  164,  165. 

2T  Ibid.,  pp.  161,  162. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  239 

houn's  services  in  general  as  Secretary  of  War  and  united 
with  Generals  Macomb  and  Roberdeau  and  other  army  and 
department  men  in  the  testimonial  to  the  retiring  Secretary 
dated  February  28,  1825,  in  which  they  said  "  the  degree  of 
perfection  to  which  you  have  carried  the  several  branches  of 
this  department  is  believed  to  be  without  parallel."  28 

Many  reports  of  the  Secretary  of  War  show  the  good  re- 
sults flowing  from  the  changes.  It  has  been  said29  that,  on 
March  4,  1817,  there  remained  unsettled  on  the  books  of  the 
auditors,  accounts  for  past  military  expenditures  to  the  amount 
of  over  forty-five  million  dollars.  By  the  rigid  system  of  ac- 
countability introduced  under  the  new  regulations,  these  ar- 
rearages were  reduced  by  September  30,  1822,  to  $4,689,292, 
and  by  December,  1824,  to  $3,136,991,  and  this  small  balance 
consisted  of  losses  and  accounts  that  never  could  be  settled.30 

Since  March  4,  1817,  the  Department  had  expended  nearly 
forty-one  million  dollars,  of  which  all  had  been  settled  by  Sep- 
tember 30,  1822,  but  six  and  a  quarter  millions  of  recent  ex- 
penditures, the  greater  part  of  which  was  made  up  of  accounts 
in  the  regular  and  due  course  of  settlement.  In  the  first  three- 
quarters  of  1822,  there  was  drawn  from  the  Treasury  on  ac- 
count of  military  expenses  $1,930,464,  of  which  the  vast  bulk 
had  been  already  accounted  for  by  the  end  of  November, — 
and  the  Secretary  wrote  that  "  there  is  reasonable  ground  to 
believe  that  the  disbursements  of  the  year  will  be  made  with- 
out any  loss  to  the  Government."  31  This  forecast  was,  more- 
over, borne  out  by  the  event;  and  in  his  report  of  December, 
i823,32  he  was  able  to  state  that  of  the  total  expenditures  of 
his  department  for  the  preceding  year  amounting  to  over  four 
and  a  half  million, —  this  total  included  pensions, — "  there  has 
not  been  a  single  defalcation,  nor  the  loss  of  a  cent  to  the 
Government."  A  similar  result  for  1823  appears  from  the 
annual  report  of  December,  i824.33 

28  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXVIII,  pp.  37,  38. 

29  Ante,  p.  228. 

30  Reports   of   November,    1822,   and   December,    1824;    "Works,"   Vol. 
V,  op.  12$,  137.     "  Autobiography,"  t>.  26. 

31  Report  to  the  President,  dated  November  26,  1822,  "  Works,"  Vol.  V, 
pp.  123-126. 

32  Report  for  1823,  ibid.,  pp.  133,  134. 

33  Ibid.,  pp.  137-147. 


24o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

In  1822,  in  obedience  to  a  resolution  of  the  House,  Cal- 
houn  made  a  statement  of  the  comparative  cost  of  the  army 
per  man  from  1818  to  i822.34  After  allowing  for  the  dif- 
ference of  prices,  he  divided  the  expenses  into  two  classes  — 
one  made  up  of  elements  such  as  pay,  fixed  by  law  and  not 
capable  of  being  affected  by  administration,  and  the  other  con- 
sisting of  supplies  in  general,  which  are  highly  capable  of  re- 
duction by  good  management.  Then,  taking  the  annual 
totals  for  the  second  class,  he  found  that  the  average  amount 
of  these  charges  for  each  man  had  been  in  1818,  $299.64;  in 
1819,  $275.98;  in  1820,  $175.43;  in  l82I>  $I5°-40,  and  in 
1822  (partly  estimated),  $144.16. 

If  calculations  of  this  nature  are  often  quagmires  of  error 
and  self  deception,  we  have  an  entirely  reliable  comparison  of 
the  results  in  one  department  (the  Paymaster's)  made  in  later 
years  by  another  hand.  In  1839,  Paymaster  General  Towson 
reported  that  from  1808  to  1811,  the  average  annual  loss  by 
defalcation  under  the  system  of  regimental  and  battalion  pay- 
masters amounted  to  1.58  per  centum  of  the  amount  dis- 
bursed and  the  annual  average  expenses  for  paying  the  army 
were  3.10  per  centum.  From  the  beginning  of  the  war  down 
to  1816,  under  the  same  system,  these  averages  were  defalca- 
tions 2.98  per  centum  and  expenses  4.36  per  centum.  From 
the  organization  of  the  new  plan,  with  a  Paymaster  General 
at  the  head,  from  1821  to  1825,  the  average  defalcations  were 
0.22  per  centum  and  the  expenses  2.13  per  centum.  From 
1825,  when  the  system  had  been  well  established,  there  was 
not  one  dollar  of  loss  by  defalcation,  and  the  expenses  were 
1.33  per  centum.35 

One  other  army  report  of  Calhoun's  is  worthy  of  careful 
examination  and  shows  that  he  had  already  in  1820  a  pretty 

"Report  to  the  House,  dated  March  5,  1823;  "Works,"  Vol.  V,  pp. 
115-122. 

35  Rodenbaugh  and  Haskins's  "  Army  of  the  United  States,"  p.  106.  Be- 
fore the  House  Committee  of  1826-27  on  the  conduct  of  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent (Calhotm),  Towson  testified  that  during  the  four  or  five  years  pre- 
ceding 1822,  the  defalcations  in  the  Paymaster's  departments  had  been 
from  $250,000  to  $350,000,  and  since  then  only  about  $14,000.  Report  No. 
79.  House  of  Representatives,  Nineteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  p. 
153. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  241 

clear  idea  of  the  system  used  in  modern  days  by  which  a  com- 
paratively small  peace  establishment  can  easily  and  very  rap- 
idly be  enlarged  in  case  of  war  into  a  far  larger  and  yet  highly 
efficient  body  of  men.  On  December  12,  1820,  in  compliance 
with  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  the  prior  session,  he  sug- 
gested a  method  for  the  reduction  of  the  army  from  10,000 
to  6,000  men,  which  was  based  on  this  design.  The  chief 
idea  seems  to  have  been  to  reduce  the  rank  and  file,  while  the 
corps  of  officers  already  existing  was  to  be  mainly  preserved. 
After  some  remarks  upon  our  peculiar  situation  and  needs,  he 
wrote  in  part  as  follows : 

The  great  and  leading  objects,  then,  of  a  military  establish- 
ment in  peace,  ought  to  be  to  create  and  perpetuate  military  skill 
and  experience;  so  that,  at  all  times,  the  country  may  have  at 
its  command  a  body  of  officers,  sufficiently  numerous,  and  well 
instructed  in  every  branch  of  duty,  both  of  the  line  and  staff; 
and  the  organization  of  the  army  ought  to  be  such  as  to  enable 
the  Government,  at  the  commencement  of  hostilities,  to  obtain 
a  regular  force,  adequate  to  the  emergencies  of  the  country, 
properly  organized  and  prepared  for  actual  service.  .  .  . 

To  give  such  an  organization,  the  leading  principles  in  its 
formation  ought  to  be,  that,  at  the  commencement  of  hostilities, 
there  should  be  nothing  either  to  new  model  or  to  create.  The 
only  difference,  consequently,  between  the  peace  and  war  for- 
mation of  the  army,  ought  to  be  in  the  increased  magnitude  of 
the  latter;  and  the  only  change  in  passing  from  the  former  to 
the  latter  should  consist  in  giving  to  it  the  augmentation  which 
will  then  be  necessary. 

It  is  thus,  and  thus  only,  the  dangerous  transition  from  peace 
to  war  may  be  made  without  confusion  or  disorder;  and  the 
weakness  and  danger,  which  otherwise  would  be  inevitable,  be 
avoided.  Two  consequences  flow  from  this  principle.  First, 
the  organization  of  the  staff  in  a  peace  establishment,  ought  to 
be  such,  that  every  branch  of  it  should  be  completely  formed, 
with  such  extension  as  the  number  of  troops  and  post  occupied 
may  render  necessary;  and  secondly,  that  the  organization  of 
the  line  ought,  so  far  as  practicable,  to  be  such  that,  in  passing 
from  the  peace  to  the  war  formation,  the  force  may  be  suffi- 
ciently augmented  without  adding  new  regiments  or  battalions; 


242  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

thus  raising  the  war  on  the  basis  of  the  peace  establishment,  in- 
stead of  creating  a  new  army  to  be  added  to  the  old,  as  at  the 
commencement  of  the  late  war. 

The  Secretary  then  presented  a  plan  with  tables,  to  carry 
out  the  ideas  advanced,  by  which  he  proposed  to  reduce  the 
army  to  6316  non-commissioned  officers,  musicians  and  pri- 
vates ;  and  this  little  army  could  be  easily  expanded  in  case  of 
war  to  19,035,  officers  and  men.  Very  high  authority36  has 
said  of  this  report  and  of  Calhoun's  plans  for  the  army  in 
general :  "  It  will  be  perceived  from  the  above  that  nearly 
sixty  years  ago  one  of  our  leading  statesmen  strongly  urged 
the  expansive  organization  which  now  prevails  in  every  army 
of  Europe.  His  plan,  in  brief,  for  the  Adjutant  General's, 
Quartermaster  General's  and  Commissary's  Departments  con- 
sisted in  having  a  permament  chief  for  each,  nearly  all  of  the 
subordinate  grades  being  filled  by  details  from  the  line."  But 
the  same  eminent  authority  adds  that  there  were  two  defects 
certain  to  insure  failure,  the  neglect  to  provide  in  the  higher 
regimental  grades  the  requisite  numbers  of  officers  to  insure 
uniform  operation,  and  the  neglect  to  replace  captains  and 
lieutenants  detailed  from  the  line  by  the  same  number  of  su- 
pernumeraries. But  for  these  defects  and  the  omission  to 
provide  that  in  time  of  peace  all  officers  detailed  from  the 
line  should  return  periodically  to  their  companies,  "  the  plan 
of  Mr.  Calhoun,  had  it  been  adopted,  would  have  given  us  all 
the  advantages  of  the  most  modern  staff  organizations." 

Here,  again,  there  is  no  direct  evidence  that  I  know  of  to 
show  whose  mind  conceived  the  plan  detailed,  but  the  head 
of  the  department  is  certainly  entitled  to  high  credit  for  his 
suggestions.  They  were  not,  however,  adopted  by  Congress, 
but  a  reduction  made  on  quite  another  basis  and  which  did  not 
include  the  advantages  presented  by  the  Secretary's  far-seeing 
plan. 

From  the  time  when  Calhoun  took  charge  of  his  office,  a 
new  spirit  was  infused  into  the  army.  Officers  found  that 

86 "The  Military  Policy  of  the  United  States,"  by  Major-General  Emory 
Upton,  pp.  150,  151.  General  Upton  does  not  seem  to  have  known  of 
the  Act  of  April  14,  1818.  Probably,  the  statutes  were  in  his  day  less 
easy  to  find  than  now. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  243 

appreciation  was  the  lot  of  the  deserving,  and  the  admirable 
material  then  and  always  in  our  military  service  responded 
at  once.  Watching  closely  the  affairs  of  his  department  and 
making  occasional  trips  of  inspection 37  Calhoun  doubtless 
knew  the  characters  of  the  commanding  officers,  and  they  must 
all  have  soon  felt  the  complete  control  of  the  immediate  head 
of  their  branch  in  Washington,  while  back  of  him  was  the 
strong  hand  of  the  Secretary  ready  in  case  of  need  to  hold 
them  rigidly  to  duty. 

Even  the  irascible  and  boundlessly  popular  Jackson  was 
called  to  account38  in  1819  for  failures  of  officers  under  his 
command  to  carry  out  the  new  regulations,  and  the  rebuke 
was  made  plain  enough,  if  the  hand  administering  it  was  a 
little  gloved.  After  calling  attention  to  the  neglects,  the  Sec- 
retary wrote  in  a  confidential  letter: 

I  am  persuaded  that  no  one  is  more  deeply  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  this  proposition  [the  necessity  of  a  rigid  adherence  to 
the  laws  and  regulations]  than  yourself,  and  that  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  call  your  attention  to  the  irregularities  which  I  have 
stated  to  relieve  me  from  the  necessity  of  determining  whether 
I  shall  permit  the  orders  of  the  Government  to  be  habitually 
neglected,  or  resort  to  the  proper  means  of  enforcing  them. 
Should  the  alternative  be  presented,  I  will  not  hesitate  to  do  my 
duty. 

\  ^ 

The  effort  to  unify  the  system  and  no  longer  to  permit  that  \#v 
as  in  the  past  different  commands  could  not  be  exercised  to- 
gether was  very  marked.  As  early  as  1818,  General  Scott 
was  engaged  by  the  Department  in  writing  a  manual  of  in- 
fantry tactics,39  and  in  1820,  in  pursuance  of  the  directions 
of  an  Act  of  Congress  of  December  22,  1819,  Scott  was  also 
preparing,  under  the  directions  of  the  Secretary,  a  system  of 
field  service  and  police,  and  Judge  Advocate  Major  Storrow 

a7 "  Correspondence,"  pp.  177,  178,  225.  In  the  trip  of  1820,  he  went 
as  far  as  Boston  and  was  much  feted  by  Webster  and  others,  Curtis's 
Webster,  Vol.  I,  pp.  176,  177.  That  of  1824  was  to  the  summit  of  the  Alle- 
ghenies,  and  was  descanted  upon  by  the  partisan  Thomas  Cooper  in  his 
well-known  pamphlet  "  Consolidation  "  as  a  frolic. 

38  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  160,  161. 

39  Calhoun  "  Correspondence,"  p.  140. 


f 


244  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

a  system  of  martial  law.40  In  1821  the  Secretary  was  urging 
the  adoption  for  our  service  of  General  Lallemand's  Treatise 
on  Artillery.41  In  1823,  when  it  was  found, —  after  the  re- 
duction of  the  army  in  1821, —  that  the  artillery  was  dis- 
tributed in  such  small  masses  that  it  could  not  be  properly  ex- 
ercised, a  School  of  Artillery  was  established  at  Fortress  Mon- 
roe,42 and  in  1824,  a  board  of  officers  was  engaged  in  revis- 
ing the  book  of  field  exercise  and  military  manoeuvres  of  in- 
fantry, which  had  been  adopted  at  the  close  of  the  war,  in 
order  to  adapt  it  to  our  then  army  system  and  to  the  use  of 
militia.43 

Military  expeditions  were,  moreover,  sent  out  in  1819,  un- 
der the  command  of  Colonels  Atkinson  and  Leavenworth,  to 
the  upper  waters  of  the  Missouri  and  of  the  Mississippi,  with 
a  view  to  the  control  of  the  powerful  Indian  tribes  and  to  pre- 
venting the  domination  of  the  fur  trade  by  the  British.44  It 
is  worthy  of  observation  that  the  Secretary  suggested  to 
Colonel  Atkinson  the  advisability  of  the  use  of  steamboats, 
and  it  should  also  be  noted  that  the  idea  of  sending  military 
expeditions  to  the  wild  regions  of  our  northwestern  frontier 
had  been  advanced  by  Monroe  in  i8i5.45 

Among  Calhoun's  many  reports  are  to  be  found  numbers 
upon  the  subject  of  the  Indians  and  the  best  way  to  manage 
that  once  so  difficult  branch  of  the  army's  duties.  In  1819, 
an  annual  appropriation  of  $10,000  for  their  civilization  was 
decided  upon,  and  the  Secretary  devised  regulations  by  which 
this  sum  might  be  expended  by  the  hands  of  beneficial  socie- 
ties. He  reported  upon  this  more  than  once,  and  in  his  regu- 
lations insisted  that  the  societies  to  receive  any  share  of  the 
money  should  instruct  the  boys  in  agriculture  and  the  girls 
in  spinning,  weaving  and  sewing.  He  had  also  a  large  share 
in  carrying  into  effect  the  plan  originated  by  Jefferson  for 

40  Calhoun's  Report  of  December  22,  1820,  to  the  House,  in  American 
State  Papers,  Military  Affairs,  Vol.  II,  pp.  199,  et  seq. 

41 "  Correspondence,"  p.  192. 

« Ibid.,  p.  208. 

«  "  Works,"  Vol.  V,  p.  138. 

""Correspondence,"  pp.  134,  148,  155,  159,  166,  171,  "Works,"  Vol. 
V,  p.  62. 

«  Letter  of  February  22,  1815,  to  the  Senate  Military  Committee :  "  Writ- 
ings," Vol.  V,  p.  325. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  245 

the  removal  of  the  Indians  to  the  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and 
told  Benton  in  the  Senate  in  1835  tnat  tne  recommendation 
of  Monroe  to  that  effect  was  founded  on  "  a  report  of  which 
I  was  the  author  as  Secretary  of  War."  This  was  a  matter 
of  great  moment  in  those  days  to  the  States  east  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi.46 

The  West  Point  Military  Academy,  which  owed  its  origin 
to  an  Act  of  1802  but  was  still  a  part  of  the  Corps  of  Engi- 
neers, with  the  cadets  attached  exclusively  to  that  branch  of 
the  service,  was  to  a  considerable  extent  reorganized  and 
given  a  standing  of  its  own,  while  the  Chief  of  Engineers 
was  removed  to  Washington  in  accordance  with  the  general 
policy  of  centering  there  all  the  heads  of  the  various  branches 
of  the  army.  Two  reports  of  the  Secretary,  of  1819  and 
i82O,47  bore  on  this  subject,  and  in  the  earlier  one  he  advo- 
cated —  largely  as  he  had  done  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives —  one  additional  Military  Academy,  to  be  placed  where 
it  would  accommodate  the  Southern  and  Western  portions  of 
the  country.  In  both  reports,  he  urged  also  as  a  means  of 
further  military  education  the  establishment  of  "  a  school  of 
application  and  practice." 

In  other  ways,  too,  he  made  good  use  of  the  materials 
within  his  reach,  not  only  aiming  to  create  an  efficient  military 
system  but  to  turn  it  to  good  account,  whenever  possible.  In- 
terested himself  in  scientific  matters,48  he  secured  from  the 
army  surgeons  not  only  extensive  reports  upon  the  diseases 
they  were  called  upon  to  treat,  but  had  them  furnished  with 
thermometers,  barometers  and  hygrometers,  and  required  re- 
ports of  the  weather  to  be  sent  by  them  to  the  surgeon-general. 
These,  or  at  least  parts  of  them  were  later  printed  in  a  sup- 

46  See  his  Reports  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  68-72,  99-108.    American 
State  Papers,   Indian  Affairs,  Vol.   II,  p.  541,  &c.    "  Congressional  De- 
bates," Vol.  XI,  Part  I,  1834-35,  p.  435. 

47  "Works,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  54-57,  72-80. 

48  Calhoun  was  among  the  subscribers  to  "  Silliman's  Journal "  in  1818, 
and  in  1825  wrote  Silliman  agreeing  to  contribute  one  hundred  dollars 
(and  more,  if  necessary  to  make  up  the  sum  required)  to  some  purpose 
having  reference  to  Yale  College.    He  said  he  looked  upon  Yale  as  "  one 
of  the  lights  of  the  nation,  which  under  Providence,  has  mainly  contributed 
to  guide  this  people  in  the  path  of  political,  moral  and  religious  duties," 
and  he  was  fully  convinced  of  the  utility  of  the  "  Journal."    Geo.  P.  Fish- 
er's "  Life  of  Silliman,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  288,  325. 


246  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

plement  to  the  "  Army  Meteorological  Register  "  of  1840,  and 
were  moreover  used  by  Dr.  Samuel  Forry  in  the  preparation 
of  his  extensive  work  on  "  The  Climate  of  the  United  States  " 
and  of  the  "  Statistical  Report  of  the  Sickness  and  Mortality 
in  the  Army  of  the  United  States,"  which  was  compiled  by 
him  and  published  under  the  directions  of  the  Surgeon  Gen- 
eral. Forry  recognized  in  his  book  on  Climate  how  much  was 
due  in  the  matter  to  Calhoun's  enlarged  views,  and  we  may 
safely  assume  that  the  Secretary's  policy  in  this  matter  helped 
materially  to  lead  up  to  the  Weather  Bureau  of  more  modern 
days.49 

y  It  will  be  remembered  that,  while  Calhoun  was  a  member 
v  of  the  House,  he  had  sought  in  1816-17  to  lead  up  to  a  sys- 
tem of  public  improvements  by  the  federal  government,  but 
had  been  met  at  the  last  minute  by  a  quite  unexpected  veto 
of  Madison,  on  the  ground  of  lack  of  constitutional  power.50 
Even  at  that  date  the  idea  was  not  new,  for  quite  an  elaborate 
report  had  been  made  upon  the  subject  by  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  Gallatin  in  i8o8,51  in  obedience  to  a  resolution  of  the 
Senate,  and  Gallatin's  recommendations  were  to  a  consider- 
able extent  similar  to  those  made  by  Calhoun  some  nine  years 
later. 

Nor  was  Calhoun's  voice  the  only  one  which  had  been  heard 
upon  the  subject  at  the  session  of  1816-17.  Clay  had  thanked 
him  on  the  floor  for  bringing  the  bill  before  Congress  and 
"  for  the  able  and  luminous  view  which  he  had  submitted  " 
of  the  matter,  and  at  this  same  session  a  committee  had  more- 
over been  appointed  on  that  part  of  the  President's  message 
relating  to  roads  and  canals.  From  this  committee  Thomas 
Wilson  of  Pennsylvania  reported  on  February  9th,  specifying 

*9THe  Library  of  Congress  has  a  copy  of  the  Statistical  Report.  The 
other  two  books  are  in  the  Library  of  the  Weather  Bureau. 

50  Ante,  p.  210,  et  seq. 

51  Annals  of  Congress,  Tenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1807-08,  Vol.  I, 
pp.   207,   332.    Gallatin's    Report   is    printed    in    American    State    Papers, 
Miscellaneous,  Vol.  I,  pp.  724-921.    It  is  a  most  elaborate  paper,  made  up 
from  many  sources  and  touching  advised  and  projected,  as  well  as  existing, 
improvements.    John  Quincy  Adams  claims    ("Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p. 
444)   that  he  was  the  first  to  urge  internal   improvements  as  a  system 
to  be  adopted  by  Congress,  by  a  resolution  he  offered  in  the  Senate  on 
February  23,    1807.    See   Annals   of   Congress,   Ninth   Congress,   Second 
Session,  1806-7,  pp.  77,  78. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  247 

the  routes  thought  advisable  in  a  way  very  similar  to  what 
Calhoun  had  already  advocated  on  the  floor  and  what  we 
shall  soon  see  that  he  urged  again  later  in  another  capa- 
city.52 

The  rebuff  of  Madison's  veto  was  a  serious  blow  to  thej 
young  representative,  but  his  opportunity  came  again  while  \ 
Secretary  of  War,  and  this  though  his  then  chief  was  clearly  _\ 
on  record  against  him.  Monroe  had  indeed  considered  the 
subject  and  written  to  Madison  about  it  early  in  his  term  of 
office,  and  in  his  very  first  message  expressed  a  "  settled  con- 
viction ...  that  Congress  does  not  possess  the  power."  He 
went  on  then  to  recommend  that  a  constitutional  amendment 
should  be  obtained,  and  again  in  1819  wanted  to  make  the 
same  recommendation.53  In  1822,  also,  a  few  years  later 
than  Calhoun's  report  about  to  be  mentioned,  Monroe  perhaps 
showed  his  general  adherence  to  this  opinion  by  vetoing  the 
bill  for  the  repair  of  the  Cumberland  Road  and  for  erecting 
and  maintaining  toll-gates  upon  it. 

On  April  4,  1818,  the  House  passed  a  resolution  calling  on 
the  Secretary  of  War  to  report  at  the  next  session  "  a  plan  for 
the  application  of  such  means  as  are  within  the  power  of  Con- 
gress, for  the  purpose  of  opening  and  constructing  such  roads 
and  canals  as  may  deserve  and  require  the  aid  of  Govern-  \ 
ment,  with  a  view  to  military  operations  in  time  of  war,"  etc.,  J 
etc.  In  reply  Calhoun  wrote  a  letter  54  to  Speaker  Clay  in 
which  he  did  not  discuss  at  all  the  constitutional  question, 
thinking  it  improper  to  do  so  under  the  resolution,  but  said 
that  "  the  measures  proposed  must  be  considered  as  depending 
on  the  decision  of  that  question."  The  report  was  of  some 
length,  with  plans,  and  detailed  the  military  roads  and  pub- 
lic highways  already  constructed  by  Congress  or  the  States. 
The  works  it  proposed  for  the  United  States  Government  to 
undertake  were  similar  to  those  he  had  advocated  in  the  House 
in  1817,  and  which  he  again  suggested  in  his  last  annual  re- 

52  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1816-17, 
pp.  866,  924-33- 

53  John  Quincy  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  462-64,  468-70:  Schou- 
ler's  "United  States,"  Vol.  IV,  p.  248;  "Monroe's  Writings,"  Vol.  VI,  p. 

3264  «  Works,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  40-54. 


248  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

port  to  the  President,  after  an  Act  had  passed  Congress  au- 
thorizing the  necessary  survey  and  plans. 

Before  the  letter  to  Clay  was  sent,  however,  a  meeting  of 
the  Cabinet  was  held  to  consider  the  matter.  Monroe  thought 
it  irregular  of  the  House  to  call  for  a  report  direct  to  them 
from  his  subordinate  and  put  to  the  cabinet  the  question 
whether  it  could  be  made  consistently  with  his  declaration  in 
his  message  at  the  opening  of  the  prior  session  of  the  opinion 
that  Congress  has  not  the  constitutional  power.  The  discus- 
sion developed  the  fact  that  the  Houses  of  Congress  had  often 
asked  for  reports  direct  to  them,  and  Calhoun  readily  agreed 
to  omit  certain  portions  of  his  draft  containing  intimations  of 
a  duty  upon  Congress  to  make  internal  improvements,  which 
of  course  conflicted  very  strongly  with  Monroe's  expressed 
opinions.  The  report  was  then  sent  in,  but  Adams  thought 
it  had  been  asked  for  in  this  way  with  the  very  object  of  em- 
barrassing the  President  and  exciting  divisions  in  his  coun- 
cils.55 

There  was,  however,  so  much  attraction  in  the  idea  of 
splendid  public  improvements- and  they  grew  so  popular,  that 
Monroe  Hhally  yielded  upon  the  subject,  possibly  carried 
away  to  some  extent  (as  the  partisan  Cooper  charged 
in  his  pamphlet  "Consolidation")  by  the  great  influ- 
ence sure  to  flow  from  the  large  expenditures  they  would 
necessitate.  In  a  few  years  the  Act  of  April  30,  1824, 
became  a  law  with  the  President's  approval,  and  he  was  au- 
thorized "  to  cause  the  necessary  surveys,  plans  and  estimates 
to  be  made  of  the  routes  of  such  roads  and  canals  as  he  may 
deem  of  national  importance  in  a  commercial  or  military  point 
of  view,  or  necessary  to  the  transportation  of  the  mails."  This 
"  Survey  Bill,"  as  it  was  called,  was  evidently  a  matter  of 
great  interest  to  the  public,  and  the  debates  were  extensively 
reproduced  in  the  newspapers.  Tt  F^T^S  nlrnflit  ifr  iflir^t  ^r- 
-rymrr  mif  nf  fim  cii^cf^nn  ™n^  hy  T^lhoim  56  in  his  letter 
to  Clay  in  1819,  that  a  military  survey  of  the  country  should 
be  made  under  the  engineers  of  the  army,  as  a  means  of  de- 

"  «  Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  217,  218. 
««  "  Works,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  48,  50. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  249 

ciding  on  the  best  system  of  highways  to  be  constructed. 
The  execution  of  the  law  fell  to  Calhoun's  department  and 
a  board  of  engineers  was  constituted,  consisting  of  General 
Bernard  and  Colonel  Totten,  of  the  engineer  corps,  and  John 
L.  Sullivan,  a  civil  engineer.57  Under  their  direction,  a  sur- 
vey was  begun  of  such  routes  as  the  Secretary  of  War  de- 
termined to  be  of  national  importance.  This  was  late  in  Cal- 
houn's term,  but  he  was  enabled  to  get  the  plan  under  way, 
and  in  his  last  annual  report  of  December,  1824,  he  went  at 
length  into  the  question  of  the  most  desirable  routes.  As 
this  was  his  latest  official  notice  of  the  subject  and  the  plan 
had  then  taken  positive  shape,  it  will  be  well  to  go  to  it  to 
ascertain  his  final  views  in  regard  to  the  routes  most  desirable 
to  improve.  He  wrote: 

.  .  .  The  United  States  may  be  considered,  in  a  geographical 
point  of  view,  as  consisting  of  three  distinct  parts ;  of  which  the 
portion  extending  along  the  shores  of  the  Atlantic,  and  back  to 
the  Allegheny  mountains,  constitutes  one ;  that  lying  on  the  lakes 
and  the  St.  Lawrence,  another;  and  that  watered  by  the  Missis- 
sippi—  including  its  various  branches,  the  other.  These  several 
portions  are  very  distinctly  marked  by  well-defined  lines,  and 
have  naturally  but  little  connection,  particularly  in  a  commercial 
point  of  view.  It  is  only  by  artificial  means  of  communication 
that  this  natural  separation  can  be  overcome;  to  effect  which 
much  has  already  been  done.  The  great  canal  of  New  York 
firmly  unites  the  country  of  the  lakes  with  the  Atlantic,  through 
the  channel  of  the  North  River;  and  the  National  Road  from 
Cumberland  to  Wheeling,  commenced  under  the  administration 
of  Mr.  Jefferson,  unites,  but  more  imperfectly,  the  Western  with 
the  Atlantic  States.  But  the  complete  union  of  these  separate 
parts,  which  geographically  constitute  our  country,  can  only  be 
effected  by  the  completion  of  the  projected  canal  to  the  Ohio 
and  Lake  Erie,  by  means  of  which,  the  country  lying  on  the 
lakes  will  be  firmly  united  to  that  on  the  Western  waters,  and 
both  with  the  Atlantic  States,  and  the  whole  intimately  connected 
with  the  centre.  These  considerations,  of  themselves,  without 
taking  into  view  others,  fairly  bring  this  great  work  within  the 
provisions  of  the  act  directing  the  surveys;  but  when  we  extend 

w  "  Works/'  Vol.  V,  p.  140. 


250  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

our  view,  and  consider  the  Ohio  and  the  Mississippi,  with  their 
great  branches,  but  as  a  prolongation  of  the  canal,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted to  be,  not  only  of  national  importance,  •  but  of  the  very 
highest  national  importance,  in  a  commercial  military  and  politi- 
cal point  of  view.  Thus  considered,  it  involves  the  completion 
of  the  improvements  in  the  navigation  of  both  these  rivers,  which 
has  been  commenced  under  the  appropriations  of  the  last  session 
of  Congress;  and  also  canals  around  the  falls  of  the  Ohio  at 
Louisville,  and  Muscle  Shoals  on  the  Tennessee  River;  both  of 
which,  it  is  believed,  can  be  executed  at  a  moderate  expense. 
With  these  improvements,  the  projected  canal  would  not  only 
unite  the  three  great  sections  of  the  country  together,  as  has 
been  pointed  out,  but  would  also  unite,  in  the  most  intimate 
manner,  all  of  the  States  on  the  lakes  and  the  Western  waters 
among  themselves,  and  give  complete  effect  to  whatever  improve- 
ment may  be  made  by  those  States  individually.  The  advantages, 
in  fact,  from  the  completion  of  this  single  work,  as  proposed, 
would  be  so  extended  and  ramified  throughout  these  great  di- 
visions of  our  country,  already  containing  so  large  a  portion 
of  our  population,  and  destined,  in  a  few  generations,  to  out- 
number the  most  populous  States  of  Europe,  as  to  leave  in 
that  quarter,  no  other  work  for  the  execution  of  the  General 
Government,  excepting  only  the  extension  of  the  Cumberland 
Road  from  Wheeling  to  St.  Louis,  which  is  also  conceived  to 
be  of  "  national  importance." 

The  route  which  is  deemed  next  in  importance,  in  a  national 
point  of  view,  is  the  one  extending  through  the  entire  tier  of  the 
Atlantic  States,  including  those  on  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  By  ad- 
verting to  the  division  of  our  country  through  which  this  route 
must  pass,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  a  striking  difference  in 
geographical  features  between  the  portions  which  extend  north 
and  south  of  the  seat  of  Government, —  including  the  Chesa- 
peake Bay,  with  its  various  arms,  in  the  latter  division.  In  the 
northern  part  of  the  division,  all  the  great  rivers  terminate  in 
deep  and  bold  navigable  estuaries, —  while  an  opposite  character 
distinguishes  the  mouths  of  the  rivers  in  the  other.  This  differ- 
ence gives  greater  advantage  to  improvement  by  canal  in  the 
northern,  and  less  in  the  southern  division.  In  the  former,  it  is 
conceived  to  be  of  high  national  importance  to  unite  its  deep 
and  capacious  bays  by  a  series  of  canals;  and  the  board  was 
accordingly  instructed  to  examine  the  routes  for  canals  between 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  251 

the  Delaware  and  the  Raritan, —  between  Barnstable  and  Buz- 
zard's Bay, —  and  Boston  Harbor  and  Narragansett  Bay.  The 
execution  of  the  very  important  link  in  this  line  of  communica- 
tion between  the  Delaware  and  the  Chesapeake,  having  been  al- 
ready commenced,  was  not  comprehended  in  the  order.  These 
orders  will  be  executed  by  the  board  before  the  termination  of 
the  season.  The  important  results  which  would  follow  from 
the  completion  of  this  chain,  in  a  commercial,  military,  and  politi- 
cal point  of  view,  are  so  striking  that  they  need  not  be  dwelt 
on.  It  would,  at  all  times, —  in  peace  and  war, —  afford  a  prompt, 
cheap  and  safe  communication  between  all  of  the  States  north 
of  the  seat  of  Government,  and  greatly  facilitate  their  com- 
munication with  the  centre  of  the  Union.  The  States  of  New 
Hampshire  and  Maine,  though  lying  beyond  the  point  where 
these  improvements  would  terminate,  would  not,  on  that  ac- 
count, less  participate  in  the  advantages,  as  they  are  no  less 
interested  than  Massachusetts  herself,  in  avoiding  the  long 
and  dangerous  passage  round  Cape  Cod,  which  would  be  ef- 
fected by  the  union  of  Barnstable  with  Buzzard's  Bay. 

In  the  section  lying  south  of  this,  none  of  these  advantages 
of  communication  by  canal  exist.  A  line  of  inland  navigation,  it 
is  true,  extends  along  nearly  the  whole  line  of  coast,  which  is  sus- 
ceptible of  improvement,  and  may  be  rendered  highly  service- 
able; particularly  in  war,  and  on  that  account  may  be  fairly 
considered  of  "  national  importance."  The  Dismal  Swamp  Canal, 
from  Chesapeake  Bay  to  Albemarle  Sound, —  which  is  nearly 
completed,  constitutes  a  very  important  link  in  this  navigation. 
But  it  is  conceived  that,  for  the  southern  division  of  our  coun- 
try, the  improvement  which  would  best  affect  the  views  of  Con- 
gress, would  be  a  durable  road,  extending  from  the  seat  of  Gov- 
ernment to  New  Orleans,  through  the  Atlantic  States;  and  the 
board  will,  accordingly,  receive  instructions  to  examine  the  route 
as  soon  as  the  next  season  will  permit. 

The  completion  of  this  work,  and  the  line  of  canals  to  the 
north,  would  unite  the  several  Atlantic  States, —  including  those 
on  the  Gulf,  in  a  strong  bond  of  union,  and  connect  the  whole 
with  the  centre, —  which  would  also  be  united,  as  has  been 
shown,  with  those  on  the  lakes  and  Western  waters,  by  the 
improvements  projected  in  that  quarter. 

These  three  great  works,  then, —  the  canal  to  Ohio  and  Lake 
Erie,  with  the  improvement  of  the  navigation  of  the  Ohio,  Mis- 


252  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

sissippi,  and  the  canal  round  the  Muscle  Shoals,  —  the  series 
of  canals  connecting  the  bays  north  of  the  seat  of  Government  — 
and  a  durable  road  extending  from  the  seat  of  Government  to 
New  Orleans,  uniting  the  whole  of  the  Southern  Atlantic  States, 
are  conceived  to  be  the  most  important  objects  within  the  pro- 
visions of  the  act  of  the  last  session.  .  .  ,58 

rAs  a  menerof  the  President's  advisory  council,  it  is  clear 

Reffiflar  In  attendance,  al- 


ways or  often  throwing  light  upon  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion and,  though  strongly  inclined  to  believe  his  view  right, 
yet  by  no  means  incapable  of  yielding  it  to  that  of  some  one 
else  which  seemed  better,  he  was,  —  so  we  are  told  by  one  very 
capable  of  judging,  when  not  blinded  by  passion,  —  specially 
remarkable  for  the  capacity  to  see  into  a  question  very  rapidly. 
He  and  Adams  were,  indeed^  at  this  time  close  friends.59  and 
"the  diarist's  opinions  may  beTaccepted  more  safely  than  later, 
when  his  mind  was  distorted  by  jealousy  and  disappointment. 
The  conflict  betweenthejimbitionft  nf  ^f  two  mpii..lraAnnt  yet 
[part,  and  Adams  was  still  as  roseate  as  his  strange 
puritan  nature  permitted  with  hope  for  a  great  political  career. 
A  very  different  color  on  this  and  other  subjects  is  given  to 
the  diary  after  the  utter  breakdown  of  his  presidency  and  the 
cold  blight  of  hope  consequent  upon  being  turned  out  of  public 
life  in  1829. 

Some  details  of  importance  are  given  by  Adams  of  Calhoun's 
opinions  in  the  cabinet,  though  far  fewer  than  a  biographer 
would  wish.  To  one  of  these,  a  quite  unmerited  importance 
was  added  in  later  years  by  the  well-known  quarrel  of  Jackson 
with  Calhoun.  When  in  1818  the  administration  learned  that 
their  Southern  General  had,  without  either  leave  or  orders, 
suddenly  taken  it  into  his  head  to  march  upon  Spanish  terri- 
tory, capture  a  Spanish  town  and  shoot  two  British  subjects, 
it  is  little  wonder  that  they  were  not  only  alarmed,  but  were 
indignant  against  their  subordinate. 

The  offence,  for  such  it  was,  had  special  reference  to  Cal- 

ss  "  Works,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  142-146. 

69  J.  Q.  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  267. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  ,  253 

houn's  department,  and  he  at  first  suspected  that  the  move- 
ment of  the  general  had  connection  with  an  American  land- 
speculation  at  St.  Marks's.60  Accordingly,  it  was  quite  nat- 
ural that  at  the  early  cabinet  meetings  upon  the  subject  the 
Secretary  of  War  was  very  decided  in  opinion  against  Jack- 
son. Adams,  on  the  other  hand,  was  the  leading  supporter 
of  the  general  and  thought  his  difficulties  so  great,  owing 
either  to  the  inability  or  unwillingness  of  the  Spaniards  to 
restrain  their  lawless  classes,  that  he  was  justified  in  invading 
foreign  territory  in  self-defense,  while  the  two  Englishmen 
had  in  effect  made  themselves  outlaws. 

The  discussion  between  Adams  and  Calhoun  was  for  a  time 
very  animated,  but  Calhoun  failed  to  convince  his  associates 
and  in  the  end  Adams's  opinion  was  in  the  main  acted  on,  ex- 
cept as  to  continuing  to  hold  the  captured  territory.  This 
conclusion  seems  to  have  been  what  Monroe  had  wanted  from 
the  start.  The  action  of  the  American  general  was  defended 
as  necessary  under  the  circumstances,  while  St.  Mark's  was 
handed  over  again  to  Spanish  hands.  Calhoun  wrote  in  effect 
in  later  years  that  he  was  convinced  by  the  discussions",  and 
that  the  decision  of  the  cabinet  was  unanimous ;  but  when  his 
first  impressions  in  the  matter  became  known  to  Jackson  some 
years  later,  the  knowledge  contributed  largely  to  inflame  the 
latter' s  irascible  temper,  and  thus  had  probably  a  very  great 
influence  in  preventing  Calhoun  from  attaining  the  position 
that  was  long  the  acme  of  his  ambition.61 

In  regard  to  that  assertion  of  our  national  determination, 
which  has  been  known  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  which  is 
often  curiously  enough  thought  to  be  a  clause  of  some  inter- 
national code  of  law,  Adams  gives  a  little  information  as  to 
the  opinion  advanced  by  Calhoun,  while  the  matter  was  under 
discussion  in  the  cabinet,  though  here  again  provokingly  little. 
Thus,  he  tells  us  that  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  Monroe,  too, 
were  in  his  opinion  unduly  alarmed  as  to  the  intentions  of  the 
Holy  Alliance,  thinking  that  the  sovereigns  meant  to  restore 

•o  J.  Q.  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  p.  115;  Ibid.,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  332. 
61  Letter  of  May  29,  1830,  to  Jackson  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  370-72. 
"  Monroe's  Works,"  Vol.  VII,  pp.  209-13,  225-27. 


254  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

her  South  American  dominions  to  Spain,  and  were  then  likely 
to  attack  us  as  the  most  conspicuous  example  of  successful 
popular  rebellion. 

For  these  reasons,  Calhoun  wanted  at  once  to  take  advantage 
of  the  opportunity  offered  by  Canning's  proposal  to  Rush,  in 
order  to  detach  Great  Britain  from  the  Alliance  and  hence 
favored  giving  our  minister  discretion  to  join  in  a  declaration 
against  interference  by  the  united  monarchs.  In  the  repeated 
discussions  of  this  vital  question  in  the  Cabinet,  he  took  an 
active  and  leading  part,  not  only  in  matters  of  substance  but  in 
such  details  as  softening  the  too  effusive  expressions  of  re- 
publicanism contained  in  some  of  Adams's  drafts,  but  it  seems 
that  the  great  motive  power  guiding  him  throughout  the  whole 
discussion  was  that  distrust  and  fear  which  it  has  been  already 
seen  he  had  of  the  Holy  Alliance.62 

On  the  very  first  day  in  their  lives  on  which  Adams  and 
Calhoun  saw  each  other,  they  were  both  decidedly  opposed  to 
accepting  some  overtures  from  Clay,  looking  to  an  agreement 
as  to  the  best  mode  of  carrying  out  his  plans  for  our  recogni- 
tion of  Buenos  Ay  res  or  Chili.  Again,  at  another  cabinet 
meeting  not  much  later,  they  united  in  the  wish  to  retain 
Amelia  Island,  and  Adams  writes  that  the  newly  arrived  mem- 
ber urged  his  view  "  with  great  force  and  effect,"  adding 
further  that  he  "  thinks  for  himself,  independently  of  all  the 
rest,  with  sound  judgment,  quick  discrimination,  and  keen 
observation.  He  supports  his  opinions,  too,  with  powerful 
eloquence." 

In  the  course  of  the  discussion  of  Adams's  Florida  nego- 
tiations, the  Southerner's  comprehension  of  the  vital  impor- 

62 "Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  177,  185,  186,  194, 
195.  203,  206.  At  a  much  later  date,  in  1846,  while  opposing  a  flaming 
resolution  of  Allen  upon  the  general  subject,  Calhoun  gave  some  details 
of  the  origin  and'  scope  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  He  had  no  doubt  that 
Adams  was  entitled  to  the  credit  of  its  paternity,  but  insisted  that  it  had 
reference  solely  to  a  specific  instance,  the  Holy  Alliance.  Adams  himself 
had,  Calhoun  went  on,  made  a  broader  declaration,  but  this  had  never  come 
before  the  cabinet.  Calhoun  was  of  opinion  that  we  should  make  no  such 
general  declaration  as  was  proposed  by  Allen  but  meet  each  particular 
case,  as  it  might  arise,  and  he  was  evidently  inclined  to  limit  the  scope 
of  the  doctrine  in  general.  "Congressional  Globe,  Twenty-Ninth  Con- 
gress, First  Session,"  pp.  197,  198,  243-48;  ibid.,  Thirtieth  Congress,  First 
Session,  p.  590. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  255 

tance  to  us  of  the  Mississippi  River  came  out  very  plainly  from 
the  start:  and  we  learn,  too,  that  as  early  as  1822  he  had  "  a 
most  ardent  desire  that  the  island  of  Cuba  should  become  a 
part  of  the  United  States/'  He  was  not  then  ready  to  face 
war  with  Great  Britain  for  that  purpose,  but  did  want  the 
Executive  to  make  a  confidential  communication  to  Congress 
in  regard  to  a  proposal  lately  received  in  a  roundabout  way 
from  leading  citizens  of  the  island  for  them  to  declare  inde- 
pendence and  ask  admission  to  the  American  Union.  Adams 
regarded  this  plan  of  Calhoun's  as  utterly  impractical,  and 
saw  clearly  that  the  whole  subject  would  have  become  known 
to  the  world  in  a  week,  or  even  a  day.63 

The  Missouri  question  burst  into  view  as  a  flaming  portent 
of  evil  early  in  1819;  and  rarely  has  a  single  issue  so  clearly 
made  or  rather  marked  the  fundamental  difference  between  the 
sections  of  a  united  and  apparently  contented  country.  It 
was  at  first  long  discussed  in  the  halls  of  Congress,  before  the 
Executive  had  any  function  in  the  matter,  and  we  have  only 
general  indications  of  the  views  of  members  of  the  cabinet. 
On  January  21,  1820,  so  we  are  told,  Calhoun  failed  to  attend 
a  meeting  of  the  President's  council,  having  gone  to  the  Sen- 
ate to  hear  William  Pinkney's  wonderful  speech  upon  the 
subject.  Adams,  to  whom  we  owe  this  information,  does  not 
tell  us  Calhoun's  impression  of  the  eloquent  Marylander,  but 
he  himself  and  members  of  his  family  also  heard  portions  of. 
the  speech  and  they  were  somewhat  disappointed.  Adams 
admitted, —  as  certainly  any  one  reading  to-day  the  printed 
speech  must  admit, —  that  "his  language  is  good,  his  fluency 
without  interruption  or  hesitation,  his  manner  impressive,"  but 
adds  the  conclusion,  which  was  of  course  due  to  his  own  feel- 
ings in  the  matter,  that  the  argument  was  weak,  "  from  the 
inherent  weakness  of  his  cause."  64 

A  month  later  the  same  diligent  recorder,  to  whom  history 
is  often  so  deeply  indebted,  tells  us  more  of  his  colleague's 
views  upon  the  general  matter.  On  February  24,  he  called 
upon  Calhoun  at  the  War  Office  and  the  two  so  utterly  diver- 

63  "  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  28,  36,  47,  48,  51, 
266,  267 ;  Vol.  VI,  pp.  70,  71. 
""Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  510-12. 


256  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

gent  types  of  men  had  a  long  conversation  upon  the  subject, 
which  deeply  interested  Adams  and  led  him,  insensibly  to 
himself,  to  detain  the  Southerner  until  at  least  an  hour  after 
the  latter's  dinner  hour. 

Calhoun,  we  are  told,  did  not  think  the  question  would  pro- 
duce a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  but  added  that,  "if  it  should, 
the  South  would  be  from  necessity  compelled  to  form  an 
alliance,  offensive  and  defensive,  with  Great  Britain,"  and 
admitted  the  justice  of  Adams's  remark  that  this  would  be 
pretty  much  returning  to  the  colonial  state,  insisting,  however, 
that  they  would  be  forced  to  such  a  course.  When  Adams 
then  asked  whether  he  thought  that  if  the  North  should  find 
itself  in  this  way  "  cut  off  from  its  natural  outlet  upon  the 
ocean,  it  would  fall  back  upon  its  rocks  bound  hand  and  foot, 
to  starve,  or  whether  it  would  not  retain  its  powers  of  loco- 
motion to  move  southward  by  land,"  Calhoun  replied  that  in 
that  case  "  they  would  find  it  necessary  to  make  their  com- 
munities all  military/'  and  Adams  pressed  the  conversation  no 
further.  We  are  told  no  more  of  Calhoun's  opinion  in  this 
conversation,  which  led  the  diarist  "  into  a  momentous  train 
of  reflection."  65 

In  March,  1820,  the  first  Missouri  struggle  came  to  an  end 
in  Congress  in  the  well-known  Compromise,  and  the  bill  was 
sent  to  the  President  for  approval.  A  meeting  of  all  the 
cabinet  was  then  at  once  called  to  secure  their  answers  in  writ- 
ing, to  be  deposited  in  the  Department  of  State,60  upon  two 
questions:  (i)  Whether  Congress  had  a  constitutional  right 
to  prohibit  slavery  in  a  territory,  and  (2)  whether  the  prohi- 
bition in  the  bill  forever  prohibiting  slavery  within  certain 
limits  was  applicable  only  to  Territories  or  could  extend  also 
to  the  States  that  might  be  formed  therefrom.  As  to  the  first 

65  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  530,  531. 

/  66  These  answers  perhaps  appear  to  have  been  so  deposited,  and  it  is 
/  clear  that  the  intention  was  that  they  should  be ;  but,  if  they  were  all  col- 
lected and  filed,  they  have  since  been  removed,  and  nothing  now  remains 
but  the  envelope  in  which  they  were  once  contained,  Schouler's  United 
States,  HI,  p.  167.  Calhoun  was  positive  in  1848  that  he  had  not  given  any 
written  opinion,  nor  is  there  any  strong  evidence  that  he  was  wrong 
about  this.  Such  matters  are  easily  neglected.  Unavailing  search  had  at 
that  time  been  made  for  the  answers.  "Congressional  Globe,"  Thirtieth 
Congress,  First  Session,  Appendix,  pp.  1178-80. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  257 

question,  it  was  unanimou^3Lagre^_jL§QAdams,tells  ns>  that 
Congress  nave  the  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Territories, 
despite*  the  fact1  fliSITneitfier  Crawford,  CalhomT^  por  \Vjrt. 

"(Jeclarefl^rimscll  veiy  nmelr'a'gamst  implied  powers.  We  are 
then  given  some  of  the  diarist's  views  of  the  contrasts  between 
the  Southerners'  principles  and  actions  on  this  question  of  im- 
plied powers,  but  they  have  no  application  to  Calhoun,  who 
was  not  as  yet  much  troubled  in  mind  by  these  "  refinements." 

I  have  found  no  evidence  that  Calhoun  ever  questioned  but 
that  he  had  at  this  date  been  of  opinion  that  Congress  have 
the  power  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  territories,  and  in  one 
instance,  on  the  contrary,  with  an  openness  which  is  not  often 
exhibited  by  public  men,  he  volunteered  as  late  as  1838  to  say 
openly  in  the  Senate  that  "  he  was  not  a  member  of  Congress 
when  that  [the  Missouri]  Compromise  was  made;  but  it  is 
due  to  candor  to  state  that  his  impressions  were  in  its  favor," 
and  then  added  that  he  had  since  come  to  think  otherwise.^ j 

On  the  second  question  submitted  by  Monroe  to  his  cabinet, 
there  was  a  long  and  acrimonious  discussion,  chiefly  between 
Crawford  and  Adams,  but  the  discussion  is  of  great  impor- 
tance in  a  Life  of  Calhoun,  for  some  of  the  New  Englander's 
views  cannot  have  failed  to  make  a  deep  mark  on  the  mind  of 
a  Southerner  when  he  later  came  to  realize  the  isolated  position 
of  his  section.  Adams  began  by  expressing  the  opinion  that 
the  word  "  forever  "  would  have  application  to  a  State  as  well 
as  a  Territory,  and  when  Crawford  denied  this  and  added 
that  even  in  such  new  States  as  had  been  admitted  upon  the 
express  condition  of  the  perpetual  interdiction  of  slavery,  an 
ordinary  Act  of  their  Legislature  might  sanction  slavery, 
Adams  expressed  views  which  would  have  seemed  very  ultra  to 
most  Southerners.  Indeed,  they  had  greatly  inflamed  the  South 
and  excited  their  deep  apprehension,  when  once  already  thought 
to  have  been  expressed  by  Rufus  King68  in  the  Senate. 

67  Speech  of  January  12,  1838,  on  his  resolutions  on  slavery  and  State 
rights  submitted  December  27,  1837 ;  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  185. 

68  It  is  not  possible  to-day  to  ascertain  what  King  did  actually  say  in  his 
speeches  on  the  Missouri  question.    As  outlined  in  Moore's  "  American 
Eloquence,"  II,  pp.  44-51,  and  again  in  his  "Life  and  Correspondence,"  by 
Charles  R.  King,  Vol,  VI,  Appendix  IV,  pp.  690-703  (see  also  his  letter 


258  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Basing  himself  on  the  assertion  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence of  the  natural  equality  of  all  men  and  their  inalien- 
able right  to  liberty,  Adams  drew  the  conclusion  that  the  just 
powers  of  government,  which  are  said  in  the  Declaration  to 
be  derived  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  could  not  extend 
to  justify  making  slaves  of  some.  Such  a  power,  he  said, 
can  never  be  derived  from  consent,  and  is  therefore  not  a  just 
power.  And  he  added  that  this  opinion,  which  Crawford  said 
had  been  attributed  to  King,  was  undoubtedly  held  by  King, 
as  well  as  by  himself,  "  was  an  opinion  universal  where  there 
are  no  slaves/'  and  was  held  by  all  those  members  of  Congress 
who  had  voted  for  the  restriction  upon  Missouri  and  many  of 

of  November  22,  1819,  in  the  same  volume,  pp.  233-34),  it  contained  little 
or  nothing  that  is  startling,  and  even  the  remarks  ("Works,"  Vol.  VI,  p. 
696)  as  to  what  the  judiciary  might  do  in  the  matter,  do  not  seem  to  go 
very  far.  But  this  evidence  consists  of  little  but  notes  of  argument,  and 
these  may  well  have  been  greatly  developed  in  the  actual  utterance.  It 
seems  plain  that  he  must  have  said  more,  or  Pinkney  never  could  have 
spoken  in  his  answer  of  King's  "  deadly  speculations,  which  invoking  the 
name  of  God  to  aid  their  faculties  for  mischief,  strike  at  all  establish- 
ments" (Benton's  "Abridgement,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  436),  and  again  (ibid.,  p. 
443)  Mr.  King  "  has  told  us  as  a  proof  of  his  great  position,  that  man  can- 
not enslave  his  fellow-man,  in  which  is  implied  that  all  laws  upholding 
slavery  are  nullities."  King's  letter  above  shows  a  desire  on  his  part 
to  avoid  the  admission  of  having  expressed  some  opinions  which  had 
evidently  been  attributed  to  him,  and  asserts  that  he  never  assented  to 
or  encouraged  any  measure  that  would  affect  the  security  of  property  in 
slaves  or  tend  to  disturb  the  adjustment  established  by  the  constitution, 
and  desired  his  remarks  to  be  construed  as  having  reference  only  to  slav- 
ery in  the  territories.  But  if  he  really  said  no  more  than  this,  Pinkney's 
answer  is  incomprehensible,  and  it  is  clear  enough  that  King's  opinions  at 
least,  according  to  Adams's  understanding  of  them,  went  much  further. 
The  Southern  understanding  of  what  he  had  said  is  perhaps  fairly  summed 
up  in  a  letter  from  Washington,  dated  February  12,  iS^p,  and  printed  in 
the  Charleston  "  Courier "  of  February  2Oth.  The  writer  charges  that 
King,-— not  to  be  outdone  by  Clinton  or  his  friends,  two  of  the  most 
conspicuous  of  whom  had  (so  the  letter-writer  goes  on)  affirmed  in  the 
New  York  Legislature  that  slavery  did  not  exist  in  the  United  States 
and  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  would  so  decide, — • 
contended  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  not  sanctioned 
slavery  but  had  only  fpreborne  to  interfere  with  it.  The  letter  then  goes 
on  that  King,  "declaring  with  his  peculiar  emphasis  that  one  man  could 
not  make  a  slave  of  another,  that  a  plurality  of  individuals  could  not 
do  so;  and  for  the  same  reason  communities,  however  organized,  could 
not  do  it,  that  all  laws  or  compacts  imposing  such  a  condition  upon  any 
human  being  were  absolutely  void,  because  contrary  to  the  law  of  nature, 
which  was^  the  law  of  God,  and  above  all  human  control  .  .  .  and  he 
intimated,  in  language  too  distinct  to  be  misunderstood,  that  it  was  not 
less  the  duty,  than  the  right  of  tjiis  nation,  to  maintain  those  princi- 
ples." 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  259 

those  who  voted  against  it.  Terrible  words  to  be  heard  by  a 
Southerner,  an  affectionate  father  of  children,  when  once  he 
realized  what  their  application  must  mean  to  his  home  and  to 
those  dear  to  him! 

All  the  cabinet  except  Adams  were  of  opinion  that  the  word 
"  forever  "  would  apply  only  during  the  territorial  state,  but 
he  then  insisted  that  in  his  written  answer  he  must  give  at 
length  the  reasons  for  holding  his  view.  Calhoun  thought  it 
very  undesirable  to  go  into  this  matter  in  the  answer  and 
suggested  to  alter  the  second  question  so  as  to  read  whether 
the  eighth  section  of  the  bill  was  consistent  with  the  constitu- 
tion, to  which  Adams  could  answer  with  a  simple  affirmation 
and  the  other  members  could  do  the  same,  with  the  addition 
that  they  considered  it  applicable  only  to  the  territorial  state. 
Adams  says  that  he  readily  agreed  to  this,  and  it  is  evident 
that,  after  the  long  and  excited  difference  with  his  colleagues, 
he  soon  came  to  realize  that  pride  of  opinion  and  his  impa- 
tience of  contradiction  had  led  him  to  express  ultra  ideas  such 
as  he  would  have  been  very  sorry  to  see  in  print  or  permit  to 
be  generally  known.  The  theories  he  had  advanced  were 
indeed  abstract,  and  he  would  not  have  dreamed  of  asking  to 
apply  them  in  practice. 

It  is,  however,  strange  to  read  the  opinion  expressed  by 
Calhoun  of  what  Adams  had  said.  As  reported  to  us,  he 
seems  to  have  had  no  thought  of  its  serious  nature  to  the 
South;  but  to  have  considered  the  matter  in  the  abstract  en- 
tirely, even  while  trying,  in  a  way  hard  to  comprehend  to- 
day,69 to  explain  the  Southern  view  of  slavery.  Adams  re- 
cords : 

After  this  meeting  [of  the  Cabinet]  I  walked  home  with  Cal- 
houn who  said  that  the  principles  which  I  had  avowed  were 
just  and  noble;  but  that  in  the  Southern  country,  whenever  they 
were  mentioned  they  were  always  understood  as  applying  only 
to  white  men.  Domestic  labor  was  confined  to.  the  blacks,  and 
such  was  the  prejudice,  that  if  he,  who  was  the  most  popular  man 
in  his  district,  were  to  have  a  white  servant  in  his  house,  his 
character  and  reputation  would  be  irretrievably  ruined. 

68  The  curious  will  find  Calhoun's  meaning  much  more  clearly  explained 
in  his  speech,  in  1848,  on  the  Oregon  bill  "  Works,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  505,  $06. 


26o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

I  said  that  this  confounding  of  the  ideas  of  servitude  and  labor 
was  one  of  the  bad  effects  of  slavery ;  but  he  thought  it  attended 
with  many  excellent  consequences.  It  did  not  apply  to  all  kinds 
of  labor  —  not,  for  example,  to  farming.  He  himself  had  often 
held  the  plough;  so  had  his  father.  Manufacturing  and  me- 
chanical labor  was  not  degrading.  It  was  only  manual  labor  — 
the  proper  work  of  slaves.  No  white  person  could  descend  to 
that.  And  it  was  the  best  guarantee  to  equality  among  the 
whites.  It  produced  an  unvarying  level  among  them.  It  not 
only  did  not  excite,  but  did  not  even  admit  of  inequalities,  by 
which  one  white  man  could  domineer  over  another. 

I  told  Calhoun  I  could  not  see  things  in  the  same  light.  It 
is,  in  truth,  all  perverted  sentiment  —  mistaking  labor  for  slav- 
ery, and  dominion  for  freedom.  The  discussion  of  this  Mis- 
souri question  has  betrayed  the  secret  of  their  souls.  In  the 
abstract  they  admit  that  slavery  is  an  evil,  they  disclaim  all 
participation  in  the  introduction  of  it,  and  cast  it  all  upon  the 
shoulders  of  our  old  Grandam  Britain.  But  when  probed  to  the 
quick  upon  it,  they  show  at  the  bottom  of  their  souls  pride  and 
vain  glory  in  their  condition  of  masterdom.  They  fancy  them- 
selves more  generous  and  noble-hearted  than  the  plain  freemen 
who  labor  for  subsistence.  They  look  down  upon  the  simplicity 
of  a  Yankee's  manners,  because  he  has  no  habits  of  overbearing 
like  theirs  and  cannot  treat  negroes  like  dogs.  .  .  .70 

When,  in  November  of  the  same  year  1820,  a  second  Mis- 
souri struggle  was  evidently  coming  on,  we  learn  from  Adams 
that  Calhoun  was  in  great  concern  at  its  re-appearance.  This 
came  out  in  one  of  those  confidences  between  the  two  men, 
which  were  at  this  time  common  enough.  Adams  had  called 
upon  him;  and  they  discussed  this  matter,  as  they  rode  to- 
gether in  Calhoun' s  carriage  to  the  President's.  On  another 
of  Adams's  calls,  too,  some  six  months  earlier,  they  rode 
together  into  the'country  to  make  a  visit  and  conversed  on 
many  subjects.  Calhoun  was  on  this  occasion  in  no  cheerful 
mood,  and  I  cannot  but  think  that  the  views  of  public  affairs 
he  then  expressed  must  have  had  their  part  some  few  years 
later  in  leading  to  his  change  of  political  view,  though  he 
did  not  at  all  at  the  time  find  the  troubles  he  referred  to 

70 "Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  5-11,  13. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  261 

exclusively  in  the  South  or  attribute  them  to  any  attempt  to 
isolate  and  exploit  that  section.     Adams  writes: 

We  conversed  of  politics,  past,  present  and  future.  Cal- 
houn's  anticipations  are  gloomy.  He  says  there  has  been  within 
these  two  years  an  immense  revolution  of  fortunes  in  every  part 
of  the  Union;  enormous  numbers  of  persons  utterly  ruined; 
multitudes  in  deep  distress ;  and  a  general  mass  of  disaffection 
to  the  Government,  not  concentrated  in  any  particular  direction, 
but  ready  to  seize  upon  any  event  and  looking  out  anywhere 
for  a  leader.  The  Missouri  question  and  the  debates  on  the 
tariff  were  merely  incidental  to  this  state  of  things.  It  was  a 
vague  but  wide-spread  discontent,  caused  by  the  disordered  cir- 
cumstances of  individuals,  but  resulting  in  an  impression  that 
there  was  something  radically  wrong  in  the  administration  of 
the  Government.  These  observations  are  undoubtedly  well- 
founded. 

Then  Adams  goes  on  to  express  the  opinion  that  the  troubles 
Calhoun  referred  to  were  due  primarily  to  paper  money  and 
other  forms  of  fictitious  capital.71 

Calhoun' s  position  as  Secretary  of  War  was  at  no  time  a 
bed  of  roses  and,  as  the  years  passed  and  he  grew  steadily  more 
prominent  and  soon  became  a  leading  candidate  for  the  presi- 
dency, the  numbers  of  those  struggling  to  pull  him  down 
rapidly  increased.  It  seems  indeed  that  as  early  as  1819, 
before  his  presidential  aspirations  had  taken  any  shape,  there 
was  a  tendency  among  some  in  Congress  to  carp  at  his  ad- 
ministration of  the  War  Department,  and  from  that  date  on  to 
the  end  of  his  term  of  service,  he  was  constantly  pestered  with 
prying  inquiries  in  regard  to  every  matter  under  his  charge. 
The  expenses  of  the  Yellowstone  Expedition,  of  the  Indian 
Department,  of  the  system  of  fortifications  and  of  the  War 
Department  in  general,  were  all  called  for  in  several  instances 
nor  did  the  matter  by  any  means  end  with  these  rather  broad 
questions  of  policy.  On  the  contrary,  all  sorts  of  details  were 
demanded  as  to  the  contracts,  which  had  been  entered  into,  as 
to  the  names  and  pay  of  all  the  persons  employed  in  the  Indian 
Department,  and  again  as  to  the  number  of  officers  and  mes- 

71 "  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  Vol.  V,  pp.  127,  128,  199. 


262  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

sengers  in  the  War  Office  and  whether  they  were  all  neces- 
sary.72 

Of  course,  such  inquiries  are  often  perfectly  proper,  and 
they  may  be  inspired  by  the  highest  motives  of  patriotism, 
but  it  is  clear  that  these  were  in  general  of  quite  a  different 
stamp.  It  is  well  known  that  there  was  long  the  most  bitter 
partisan  opposition  to  Calhoun,  and  as  early  as  1821,  in  spite 
of  the  general  praise  given  his  administration  of  the  War 
Office,  it  was  charged  by  a  clique  in  Congress  to  be  inefficient 
and  extravagant.  These  attacks  were  believed  by  Adams73 
to  be  instigated  by  William  H.  Crawford,  and  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  such  was  the  case  and  that  the  controlling 
motive  back  of  them  was  the  desire  to  win  that  seductive 
American  siren,  the  Presidency. 

Crawford  was  the  focus  of  the  hopes  of  the  party  or  faction 
in  question,  known  as  Radicals.  They  existed  especially  in 
Georgia  and  some  other  Southern  States,  but  were  to  be  found 
also  in  New  York  and,  in  scattering  numbers,  elsewhere. 
Claiming,  as  did  others,  too,  to  be  Simon-pure  Democrats, — 
the  direct  and  only  heirs  of  Jefferson  and  the  Republican  party, 
—  the  Radicals  were  often  strict  constructionists  to  a  high 
degree,  were  at  about  this  time  and  for  a  few  years  later  the 
State  Rights  party  par  excellence  as  well  as  always  and  most 
especially  in  favor  of  a  high  degree  of  economy  and  of  limit- 
ing Governmental  agencies  to  such  an  extent  as  Calhoun  and 
many  who  had  had  any  part  in  the  War  of  1812  looked  upon 
as  ruinous.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  I  think,  that  the  catch- 
ing claim  of  economy  constituted  no  little  part  of  their  stock 
in  trade.  Possibly  the  most  pregnant  hint  as  to  their  tenden- 
cies is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  the  knowledge  of  which  we  owe 
to  one  of  the  band,74  that  they  were  at  the  time  called  "  ruth- 
less radicals." 

72  Some  of  the  answers  to  these  inquiries  are  to  be  found  in  the  Amer- 
ican State  Papers.  The  following  citations  are  merely  samples,  and  many 
more  could  be  found  from  the  references  in  the  Calendar  of  Calhoun 
Letters  in  Prof.  Jameson's  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp.  25-38 ;  Amer- 
ican State  Papers,  Military  Affairs,  Vol.  I,  pp.  848-860,  in  February,  1819; 
ibid.,  Vol.  II,  pp.  48-51,  68-69,  368-375,  419,  420-422;  ibid.,  Indian  Affairs, 
Vol.  II,  pp.  266,  267,  271-74,  364-371,  826-833 ;  ibid.f  Miscellaneous,  Vol.  II, 
p.  983. 

"  «  Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  314-316,  326;  Vol.  VI,  p.  8. 

7*Gov.  Floyd,  in  his  remarks  in  Congress  (as  quoted  in  Niles's  "Reg- 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  263 

To  these  hints  can  fortunately  be  added  a  fairly  clear  out- 
line of  the  struggle  of  the  day  from  the  pen  of  a  very  capable 
politician,  who  was  concerned  in  it.  James  Buchanan  wrote 
in  his  autobiography : 

When  I  first  entered  the  House  of  Representatives  [in  Decem- 
ber, 1821],  there  was  a  party  in  it  which  was  called  the  Radical 
party,  in  favor  of  cutting  down  the  expenses  of  the  Government 
to  the  lowest  possible  standard  without  as  I  supposed  suffi- 
ciently considering  the  real  necessities  of  the  country.  Its  lead- 
ers were  the  late  Governor  Floyd  of  Virginia,  Mr.  Williams  of 
North  Carolina,  General  Cocke  of  Tennessee,  and  others.  These 
gentlemen  were  all  the  friends  of  Mr.  Crawford,  and  were  pe- 
culiarly hostile  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  whose  alleged  extravagance  as 
Secretary  of  War  they  denounced  in  no  measured  terms.  I  did 
not  perceive  in  the  House  the  slightest  trace  of  the  old  distinc- 
tion between  Federal  and  Democrat.  So  far  from  it  that  several 
of  them  elected  as  federalists  held  to  a  considerable  extent  Demo- 
cratic principles ;  while  many  of  those  who  had  been  called 
Democrats  held  high  toned  federal  principles.  The  names  were 
still  continued ;  but  the  things  signified  by  those  names  no  longer 
existed.  Mr.  Monroe's  administration  whilst  it  was  Democratic 
in  name,  generally  pursued  the  federal  policy. 

Buchanan  then  goes  on  to  detail  an  instance  of  Calhoun's 
troubles.  For  two  or  three  years  Congress  had  regularly  ap- 
propriated $200,000  or  more  for  the  Indian  Department,  and 
a  system  had  grown  up  which  called  for  about  this  sum.  On 
the  very  last  day,  however,  of  the  session  ending  March  3, 
1821,  under  some  impulse  of  economy  the  amount  had  been 
largely  reduced  and  the  Secretary  suddenly  —  according  to 
Buchanan,  without  "  notice  of  any  intention  to  change  this 
settled  policy  " —  found  himself  with  only  $100,000  for  the 
purposes  of  that  department.  Previous  to  this  time,  Buchanan 
goes  on,  the  impulse  had  been  given  under  the  old  system,  and 
it  could  not  be  stopped  within  a  year.  The  consequence  was 
that,  though  Calhoun  did  his  best  after  the  passage  of  the 
bill  to  curtail  the  expenses,  they  none  the  less  exceeded  the 
appropriation  by  $70,000,  and  he  was  obliged  to  ask  for  an 

ister,"  Vol.  XXXI,  p.  396)  upon  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Mix 
contract. 


264  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

appropriation  to  meet  this  deficiency  and  "  was  denounced  as 
extravagant  and  a  contemner  of  the  law."  After  a  struggle, 
in  which  Buchanan  aided  the  Secretary,  the  appropriation  was 
passed.75 

There  is,  however,  at  the  same  time  evidence  that  Calhoun 
became  occasionally  very  restless  under  such  methods  of  Con- 
gress and  in  some  instances  even  went  on  and  carried  his  wishes 
through,  despite  their  action.  ^Thus,  in  1822,  when  the  ap- 
propriation for  a  portion  of  the  defences  of  New  Orleans  was 
cut  off,  work  on  the  Dauphin  Island  fortifications  had  none 
the  less  been  carried  on  and  a  contract  entered  into  which 
soon  became  a  source  of  some  anxiety  to  Calhoun  and  the 
Administration.  Adams  wrote  in  regard  to  these  works: 
"  Congress  have  refused  appropriations  for  continuing  them, 
and  large  advances  have  been  made  to  the  contractors,  which 
must  now  be  recovered  back  from  them.'*  The  method  of 
doing  this  was  a  subject  of  some  consideration,  and  Adams 
thought  that  "  Calhoun's  object  is  to  escape  the  investigation  of 
the  contract  by  Congress."  Nor  need  we  wonder  at  this  wish 
of  the  Secretary  in  view  of  the  6th  section  of  the  Act  of  May 
i,  1820,  which  distinctly  provided  that  no  contract  should  be 
entered  into  except  in  pursuance  of  a  law  and  an  appropria- 
tion.76 

Adams  thought,  too,  that  Calhoun's  allowances  of  contin- 
gent extra  emoluments  to  officers  of  the  army  were  based  on  a 
very  questionable  construction  of  the  law,  and  they  were  much 
criticised  by  the  opposition.  He  himself  continued  the  prac- 
tice during  his  presidency,  however,  on  the  ground  of  its  being 
a  settled  construction  and  perhaps  in  order  to  avoid  unpopu- 
larity with  army  officers ;  but  Jackson  in  the  course  of  his  "  re- 
forms "  at  once  fell  upon  this  practice  and  stopped  it.77 

Calhoun  had  also  a  clash  with  Congress  and  carried  through 
his  own  wishes  in  regard  to  the  army  regulations  which  had 
been  drawn  up  by  Scott  at  the  Secretary's  instance.  These 

"Moore's  "Works  of  James  Buchanan,"  "Autobiographical  Sketch," 
Vol.  XII,  pp.  300,  301. 

76  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  542-543 ;  Peters's  "  U.  S.  Statutes  at 
Large,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  568. 

77  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  151. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  265 

had  been  established  in  1821  by  a  clause  of  the  Act  of  March 
2  of  that  year,  but  when  this  clause  was  for  some  reason  later 
repealed  by  Congress,  Calhoun  simply  had  them  continued  by 
an  Executive  order  and  the  House  was  then  upon  inquiry 
informed  of  this  action  of  the  President  and  told  that  "  the 
said  regulations  are  therefore  continued  in  force  by  his  au- 
thority in  all  cases  where  they  do  not  conflict  with  positive 
legislation."  It  would  be  difficult  to  discover  the  hidden  mo- 
tives lying  back  of  this  dispute.78 

The  constant  efforts  to  reduce  the  army  were  probably 
among  the  most  distasteful  of  these  measures  of  economy,  so 
far  as  Calhoun  was  concerned.  They  also  were  doubtless 
largely  partisan  in  origin,  but  another  motive  back  of  them 
was  of  course  the  unavoidable  distrust  of  an  army  in  a  democ- 
racy. This  feeling  came  down  to  the  then  rulers  of  public 
affairs  from  the  long  history  of  our  race,  and  John  Quincy 
Adams  wrote 79  in  marked  approval  of  the  very  reduction  of 
1821,  which  was  made  so  much  in  opposition  to  the  wishes  of 
the  Secretary  of  War.  It  is  worthy  of  mention,  too,  as  show- 
ing that  the  same  charges  were  made  then  as  now,  or  perhaps 
that  the  same  means  were  employed  in  that  day  as  are  in  our 
own  time,  in  order  to  secure  liberal  appropriations  for  arma- 
ment, that  alarms  of  possible  wars  were  alleged  to  be  used 
for  this  purpose  in  i82o.80 

\  Calhoun  was,  beyond  doubt,  from  the  beginning  opposed  to 
reducing  the  army.8!-  In  a  report  to  the  House  under  date  of 
December  n,  1818,  in  answer  to  a  resolution  calling  for  in- 
formation as  to  what  reduction  might  be  safely  made,  the 
whole  argument  showed  most  clearly  his  opposition  to  any  such 
action,  and  he  stated  that  "  the  act  of  the  last  session  [Act  of 
April  14,  1818],  it  is  believed,  has  made  all  the  reduction 
which  ought  to  be  attempted."  Doubtless,  this  same  belief 
was  often  expressed  in  conversation,  too,  with  all  the  energy 

•    78  American  State  Papers,  Military  Affairs,  Vol.  II,  p.  623. 

79  "  Memoirs,'*  Vol.  VII,  pp.  446,  447.     Possibly  this  judgment  does  not 
represent  Adams's  opinion  with  accuracy.     It  was  written  under  the  sting 
of  great  bitterness  against  Calhoun. 

80  John  Quincy  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  17,  34. 

«/&«/.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  115.  For  Calhoun's  Report,  see  "Works,"  Vol.  V, 
PP.  25,  30. 


266  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

and  strange  persuasiveness  which  belonged  to  Calhoun,  but 
the  contrary  feeling  was  too  prevalent  to  be  long  curbed. 

Early  in  the  session  of  1819-20  the  House  called  for  a  re- 
port on  the  strength  of  the  army,  which  was  sent  in  on  Decem- 
ber 31.  Later  in  the  same  session  a  resolution  was  submitted 
by  Clay  calling  for  a  plan  to  reduce  the  army  to  6000,  and 
this  was  adopted  on  May  nth,  1820.  It  was  in  reply  to  this 
resolution,  and  in  an  effort  to  modify  its  possible  ill  effects, 
that  Calhoun  sent  in  at  the  next  session  his  Report  of  Decem- 
ber 12,  1820,  already  referred  to,  containing  a  plan  for  a  small 
army  capable  of  being  rapidly  augmented.  The  House  did 
not,  as  has  been  seen,  adopt  the  Secretary's  views,  and  on 
March  2,  i82i,82  an  act  was  passed  reducing  the  military 
peace  establishment  to  6183  men  and  taking  little  note  of  the 
plan  suggested. 

Calhoun  seems  to  have  continued  to  dread  still  further  re- 
duction, and  wrote  Joel  Poinsett  on  July  3  of  the  same  year 
urging  him  to  remain  in  Congress  and  expressing  his  fear 
that  at  the  coming  session  "  the  temper  exhibited  by  so  many 
members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  at  the  last  session 
to  prostrate  the  whole  of  our  establishments,  will  again  re- 
appear." In  1824,  too,  in  a  letter  of  June  8  to  Henry  A.  S. 
Dearborn,  he  pointedly  expressed  his  disapproval  of  those  poli- 
ticians who  had  struggled  to  nullify  his  efforts  in  favor  of 
preparation  and  once  more  bore  upon  the  dangers  to  us  from 
the  Holy  Alliance. 

One  of  the  attacks  made  upon  Calhoun  must  be  gone  into 
more  at  length.     On  July  25,  1818,  some  seven  or  eight  months 
after  he  took  charge  of  the  War  Department  and  shortly  after 
his  return  from  a  visit  to  the  South,  but  before  his  reforms 
I      were  well  under  way,  a  contract  was  made  by  the  Engineer 
\     Department  with  one  Elijah  Mix  for  the  delivery  of  a  large 
quantity  of  stone  at  the  Rip-Raps,  in  the  lower  part  of  Chesa- 
peake Bay.     It  was  to  be  used  toward  the  erection  of  a  fort, — 
which  was  intended  to  be  called  Fort  Calhoun, —  at  this  place 
and  was  a  part  of  the  great  system  or  fortifications  then  plan- 

82  This  is  the  law  of  which  General  Jesup  said :  "  I  put  (it)  into  form, 
at  the  request  of  Colonel  Williams  and  Colonel  Trimble,  from  memoranda 
furnished  by  them."  Ante,  pp.  238,  241,  242. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  267 

ning.  Mix  in  some  way  managed  to  carry  through  his  con- 
tract, but  there  was  a  deal  of  trouble  with  him,  and  he  was  a 
thoroughly  unreliable  character. 

In  giving  out  the  contract,  the  loose  methods  long  prevalent 
had  been  used  by  the  Engineers,  though  other  army  expendi- 
tures at  about  the  same  time  were  far  more  carefully  man- 
aged. There  was  no  advertisement  of  theRig-Rap  contract, 
and  the  chief  dealers  in  stone  were  mere^TnTormed  of  the 
matter  and  asked  to  bidr^Moreover,  army  officers  made  per- 
sonal investigations  in  advance  as  to  what  would  be  a  fair 
charge  for  the  service  required.  The  testimony  was  clear  that 
this  was  and  long  had  been  the  custom  at  that  day  and  that 
public  advertisements  were  not  usually  made,  when  the  field 
of  operations  was  near  at  hand  and  personal  visitations  could 
fairly  well  cover  it.  This  was  the  case,  too,  as  to  other  de- 
partments than  the  army. 

One  very  evil  custom  of  our  administration  at  that  time 
came  out  in  this  case.  Officers  and  employes  in  the  various 
departments  were  often  interested  in  contracts  and  even  held 
them  themselves  and  would  then  at  times  force  contractors  to 
take  their  "  due-bills "  in  place  of  money  and  thus  secure 
credit  at  the  Treasury  for  so  much  paid.83  There  was  nothing 
so  bad  as  this  in  the  Rip-Rap  contract,  but  the  following  did 
occur :  Major  Van  Deventer,  the  Chief  Clerk,  was  a  brother- 
in-law  of  Elijah  Mix,  and  when  the  latter  soon  found  himself 
in  serious  straits  to  do  what  is  nowadays  called  "  finance  "  the 
matter,  Van  Deventer  came  somehow  to  assume  a  liability  to 
protect  others  against  Mix's  failure.  As  is  usually  the  case, 
the  obligations  thus  assumed  grew  by  what  they  fed  on,  and 
the  guarantor  found  ere  long  that  he  might  be  liable  for  a 
sum  over  $5500  and  more  than  everything  he  owned  in  the 
world. 

Under  the  pinch  of  this  trouble,  he  sought  means  to  protect 
himself,  but  Mix  was  practically  insolvent  and  there  was 
probably  but  one  way, —  the  assignment  by  Mix  of  a  portion 
of  his  rights  in  the  contract.  The  evidence  is  perfectly  clear 

83  Testimony  of  General  Jesup  before  the  Committee  on  the  conduct  of 
the  Vice-President.  House  Report  No.  79,  Nineteenth  Congress,  Second 
Session,  pp.  157,  158. 


268  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

that  Van  Deventer  had  originally  no  interest  whatsoever  in  the 
matter  and  was  absolutely  without  influence  as  to  giving  out 
the  contract  —  it  was  indeed  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the 
Engineers  with  whom  he  had  no  power  or  weight.  But,  as 
his  danger  grew  more  imminent,  he  spoke  to  Calhoun  about 
the  matter  and  asked  whether  it  would  be  improper  for  him 
to  invest  money  in  the  contract  and  was  told  in  reply  that  it 
would  not  be  illegal,  as  there  was  no  law  to  prohibit  it,  but 
that  it  might  expose  him  (Van  Deventer)  to  improper  in- 
sinuations and  would  therefore  be  injurious. 

In  spite  of  this  good  advice  from  his  chief,  the  subordinate 
did  take  some  sort  of  transfer  of  one-quarter  of  Mix's  interest 
as  security  for  his  responsibility  at  about  the  time  in  1818 
when  he  first  incurred  the  risk,  and  in  April  of  1819  he  took 
a  formal  assignment  of  one-half  interest,  apparently  paying 
something  therefor.  All  this  was  done  without  the  knowledge 
of  the  Secretary,  and  when  the  matter  reached  his  ears  he  told 
Van  Deventer  that,  if  it  became  necessary  to  make  a  decision 
in  the  department  in  favor  of  the  assigned  share,  the  chief 
clerk's  connection  with  the  office  would  be  at  once  terminated. 

Mix's  contract  seems  to  have  been  for  some  time  looked 
upon  as  a  losing  one,  but  in  the  end  of  1819  and  beginning  of 
1820  changes  in  prices  rendered  it  a  much  more  hopeful  ven- 
ture. After  this,  Van  Deventer  having  succeeded  in  protect- 
ing himself  from  loss  and  feeling  the  delicacy  of  his  situation, 
sold  out  all  his  interest,  in  part  to  Mix  and  in  part  to  his  and 
Mix's  father-in-law  Cooper,  expecting  when  the  matter  was 
fully  settled  to  realize  about  three  or  four  thousand  dollars. 

But  the  trouble  was  not  yet  over,  for  some  dispute  arose 
between  Mix  and  others  as  to  who  was  entitled  to  certain 
payments  from  the  War  Office,  and  Calhoun  was  called  upon 
to  make  a  decision  upon  this  question.  As  the  point  was  of 
vital  interest  to  the  share  Van  Deventer  had  assigned  to  Cooper 
and  indirectly  to  Van  Deventer  himself, —  who  at  that  time 
had  not  been  fully  paid  for  what  he  had  sold, —  Calhoun  told 
his  chief  clerk  that,  if  the  decision  had  to  be  made,  the  latter's 
removal  from  office  would  be  a  necessary  result.  Time  for 
the  parties  to  settle  their  differences  amicably  was,  however, 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  269 

allowed,  and  Van  Deventer  went  to  New  York  near  the  end  of 
March,  1821,  to  see  Mix  and  endeavor  to  obviate  this  trouble. 
He  wrote  Mix  of  his  coming  and  added  that  upon  the  latter's 
conduct  in  the  matter  would  "  depend  whether  or  no  I  shall 
return  to  my  functions  in  this  department.  It  has  finally 
come  to  that  unfortunate  result.  You  can  stay  the  evil  or 
complete  the  ruin." 

As  a  result  of  this  visit,  some  adjustment  was  made,  the 
need  of  a  decision  by  Calhoun  was  removed,  and  Van  Deven- 
ter remained  in  his  office.  But  in  some  way  Dame  Rumor 
got  hold  of  the  matter  and  it  became  a  subject  of  discussion 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  April  22,  1821,  when  a 
committee  of  investigation  was  appointed.  They  reported  the 
facts  about  as  above,  expressed  the  opinion  that  no  contract 
should  be  given  out  but  upon  public  advertisement  and  then 
concluded  that  this  particular  one  "  was  not  formed  in  the 
manner  which  the  law  prescribes,"  and  recommended  a  reso- 
lution "  that  further  appropriations,  to  be  expended  under  the 
contract  made  by  the  engineer  department  with  Elijah  Mix, 
ought  not  to  be  made." 

The  only  suspicion  of  impropriety  in  the  matter  down  to  this 
date,  so  far  as  the  Government  was  concerned,  attached  to 
Van  Deventer,  and  his  conduct  seems  to  have  been  the  result 
of  imprudence  under  very  trying  circumstances.  But  at  the 
same  time  the  report  did  reflect  strongly  upon  the  general  man- 
agement of  the  War  Department  by  Calhoun  and  was  full  of 
innuendoes  of  inefficiency;  and  the  resolution  recommended, 
if  passed,  would  have  been  the  strongest  condemnation.  The 
House,  however,  did  not  take  the  same  view  of  the  matter 
as  did  the  committee,  and  an  appropriation  in  continuance  of 
the  work  was  finally  carried  and  became  a  law.  In  the  House, 
it  passed  by  a  large  majority,  and  that  branch  refused  to  agree 
to  an  amendment  of  the  Senate. that  the  appropriation  should 
not  be  considered  as  an  affirmation  of  the  contract  with  Mix. 
The  Senate  then  receded. 

>Such  involved  contests,  however,  especially  when  compli- 
cated with  impropriety  on  some  one's  part,  are  hard  to  put  to 
rest,  and  this  particular  one  burst  its  cerements  and  arose  once 


27o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

more  from  the  grave,  with  far  uglier  aspect,  some  four  to  five 
years  later  when  Calhoun  had  been  Vice-President  for  nearly 
two  years.—  He  had,  while  at  the  head  of  the  War  Office, 
dismissed  a  paymaster,  Major  Satterlee  Clark,  for  not  settling 
his  accounts;  and  Clark  later  wrote  a  series  of  letters  under 
assumed  names  to  New  York  papers,  abusing  Calhoun  in  round 
terms.  Mix,  seeing  these  letters  and  thinking  that  Calhoun 
had  been  very  hard  on  him  in  the  Rip-Rap  contract,  wrote  to 
Clark  on  November  i,  1825,  saying  that  "  if  any  information 
is  wanted  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Calhoun'  s  infidelity,  ...  I 
have  written  letters  of  Van  Deventer's  which  most  positively 
mention  that  he  [Calhoun]  was  engaged,  and  received  some 
portion  of  the  contract."  Small  wonder  that  a  person  belong- 
ing to  "  the  editorial  profession  "  told  Clark  that  this  letter, 
if  published,  "  would  make  a  devil  of  a  noise."  But  strangely 
enough  this  unenterprising  editor  allowed  his  opportunity  to 
slip  away,  and  the  letter  was  not  at  once  made  public. 

In  the  end  of  1826,  however,  Calhoun's  successor,  James 
Barbour,  was  about  to  award  a  contract  in  an  entirely  new 
matter  to  Mix,  who  was  the  lowest  bidder.  Clark,  who  had 
carefully  preserved  Mix's  letter  and  taken  a  copy  of  it,  came 
to  Washington  about  this  time  and  met  Mix's  chief  competitor. 
As  a  result  of  their  manoeuvers  and  of  the  exhibition  of  the 
precious  letter,  not  only  did  Mix  fail  to  get  the  hoped-for 
contract  (Barbour  saying  that  the  charge  against  Calhoun 
was  "  a  foul  calamny,"  and  that  Mix  would  probably  charge 
him  also  with  "  going  snacks  "  )  but  Mix's  letter  to  Gark  was 
published  in  full  in  an  Alexandria  paper  on  December  28, 
with  editorial  comments.  There  was  at  once,  as  had  been 
predicted  by  ^  JM^otherj^ditor,  ^  theTidevil  of~si.  noise,"  and  the 
intended  fort  came  soon  to  be  known  to  the  public  as  "  Castle 


JEhc  day  after  the  publication.  the  Vice-President  wrote  to 

the  House  of  Representatives  asking  that  it  should,  as  "  grand 
inquest  of  the  nation,"  investigate  this  charge;  and  also  wrote 
to  the  Senate  informing  it  of  this  action  on  his  part,  adding 
that  "  a  sense  of  propriety  forbids  me  from  resuming  my  sta- 
tion till  the  House  has  disposed  of  the  subject."  The  House 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  271 

at  once  appointed  a  committee  of  seven,  which  examined  a 
number  of  witnesses  and  reported  unanimously  on  February 
13  that  "there  are  no  facts  which  will  authorize  the  belief, 
or  even  suspicion,. that, .the Vice-President  was  ever  interested, 
or  that  he  participated,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  profits 
of  any  KQni'^^J^J^^^^^^ through  the  department  of 
war  "  at  any~-tii»e.~~ 

The  whole  proceedings,  however,  were  far  from  satisfac- 
tory to  either  Calhoun  or  his  friend  McDuffie,  who  had  at- 
tended the  meetings  in  his  interest.  Calhoun  complains  that 
the  committee  was  composed  "  with  the  exception  of  two,  of 
hostile  materials/'  and  that  they  spun  out  their  sittings  to  an 
unseemly  length  on  other  matters  than  that  which  they  were 
appointed  to  investigate.  The  report  contained  also  numbers 
of  hints  as  to  careless  and  inefficient  management.  In  the 
investigation  of  1822,  the  committee  had  found  that  one  Jen- 
nings owned  from  the  start  a  quarter  interest  in  the  contract, 
but  this  had  now  come  to  be  an  entirely  vague  hint  as  to  some 
mysterious  secret  partner,  whose  identity  could  not  be  ascer- 
tained. 

The  committee  had,  moreover,  intended  to  close  the  testi- 
mony some  two  weeks  sooner,  without  having  examined 
several  high  officers  of  the  army,  but  this  was  prevented  by  a 
protest  from  McDuffie.  General  Brown  and  others  were 
then  called  and  testified  strongly,  if  in  rather  general  terms, 
as  to  the  improvements  in  administration  brought  about  during 
Calhoun's  service  and  partly  at  least  by  him.  Mix  fared  badly 
on  all  hands  and  was  reported  to  be  absolutely  unworthy  of 
belief  and  to  have  fraudulently  altered  and  mutilated  letters 
and  other  papers. 

This  subject  has  taken  some  space,  but  was  of  vital  interest 
to  Calhoun  at  one  time,  though  now  little  but  an  impediment 
that  had  to  be  cleared  away.  Some  friends  thought  at  the 
time  that  the  Vice-President's  action  in  calling  for  an  investi- 
gation was  unnecessary,  because  of  the  degraded  character  of 
his  accusers;  but  his  Presidential  aspirations  probably  made 
him  see  ahead  more  clearly  than  did  they,  and  they  were  later 
satisfied  that  he  had  been  right  in  thinking  that  otherwise  at 


272  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

some  time  in  the  future,  when  Mix's  character  was  forgotten, 
the  charges  and  insinuations  would  have  been  generally  ac- 
cepted and  have  ruined  him. 

On  February  14,  the  day  after  the  committee  had  made  its 
report,  Calhoun  resumed  his  seat  as  presiding  officer  and  the 
incident  was  ended  as  to  him  for  all  time ;  but  Van  Deventer 
was  at  once  dismissed  from  his  office  by  Barbour.  Nor  did  the 
matter  go  off  without  one  of  those  alarms  of  a  duel,  which 
were  so  common  in  the  days  of  artificial  and  often  fantastic 
honor.  McDuffie  fell  into  a  wordy  wrangle  by  correspondence 
with  General  Thomas  Metcalfe,  who  had  been  a  member  of  the 
committee  of  1822,  and  the  lie  circumstantial,  or  at  least  with 
an  "  if,"  was  passed  on  both  sides.  The  result  was  that  Mc- 
Duffie challenged  Metcalfe,  but  the  latter  chose  rifles  as  the 
weapons,  at  a  distance  of  ninety  feet. 

Some  correspondence  then  ensued  between  the  seconds,  but 
Major  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  objected  that  McDuffie  was  quite 
disabled  from  handling  a  rifle  by  wounds  received  in  a  prior 
duel,  and  then  the  other  second  replied  that  Metcalfe  had 
absolutely  no  knowledge  of  a  pistol  and  had  never  fired  one  in 
his  life.  The  subject  was  discussed  for  a  time  between  the 
seconds,  and  doubtless  the  extent  of  the  challenged  party's 
right  to  choose  weapons  was  elaborately  debated  by  the  whole 
guild  of  duellists,  but  neither  side  would  yield  and  the  intended 
meeting  was  never  held.84 

A  few  words  must  be  said  here  of  the  tariff,  for  the  subject 
was  destined  in  a  few  years  to  become  of  vital  moment  not 
only  to  Calhoun  but  to  the  country  as  well.  During  Monroe's 
presidency,  it  was  several  times  under  discussion.  The  Act 
of  1816  had  provided  for  reductions  in  some  of  the  rates  in 
1819,  but  in  1818  this  term  was  extended  to  1826  and  the  rates 
on  unmanufactured  iron  were  increased.  At  the  next  session 

84  The  proceedings  in  regard  to  the  two  investigations  growing  out 
of  the  Rip-Rap  contract  are  pretty  extensively  given  in  Niles's  "  Register," 
Vol.  XXII,  pp.  251-263,  270-282;  ibid.,  Vol.  XXXI,  pp.  292,  293,  300.  302, 
305,  394-407;  ibid.,  Vol.  XXXII,  pp.  1-8.  The  complete  report  of  the 
earlier  committee  (of  1822)  is  to  be  found  in  American  State  Papers, 
Military  Affairs,  Vol.  II,  pp.  431-439.  The  official  report  of  the  second 
committee  (1826-27)  is  Report  No.  79.  House  of  Representatives,  Nine- 
teenth Congress,  Second  Session.  See  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp. 
239-41,  79i. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  273 

(December,  1819),  the  usual  House  Committee  on  Commerce 
and  Manufactures  was  divided  and  a  special  standing  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures  secured,  of  which  Baldwin  of  Penn- 
sylvania was  made  chairman,  and  at  that  same  session  his  bill 
for  an  increase  barely  failed  by  one  vote  in  the  Senate,  after 
having  passed  the  House.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  South, 
a  majority  of  whose  members  had,  it  has  been  shown,  opposed 
even  the  Act  of  1816,  was  overwhelmingly  opposed  to  the  bill 
of  1820:  of  the  55  members  of  the  House  from  that  section, 
only  3  voted  in  its  favor,  while  40  voted  against  it  and  there 
were  12  not  voting. 

The  subject  continued  to  be  agitated,  chiefly  in  the  Middle 
and  Western  States,  and  at  length  in  his  annual  messages  of 
December  1822  and  1823  Monroe  was  induced  to  recommend 
additional  encouragement./*This  was,  we  are  told,85  against 
the  advice  of  Calhoun,  who  was  by  that  time  evidently  in 
accord  with  the  general  view  of  his  section  on  the  subject. 
He  always  thought 86  that  injustice  had  been  done  to  the  iron 
men  of  Pennsylvania  by  the  Act  of  1816,  and  I  know  of  no 
proof  as  to  his  opinion  in  regard  to  the  measure  of  1818  or  the 
attempted  increase  of  1820;  but  as  early  as  1821  he  had  evi- 
dently become  restless  at  the  growing  hunger  for  ever  higher 
rates  and  probably  quite  conscious  of  the  South's  tendency  in 
the  other  direction)^  In  March  of  that  year,  when  Monroe's 
second  inaugural  was  read  in  advance  to  the  cabinet,  "  there 
were  expressions,"  so  Adams  writes,87  "  favorable  to  the 
manufacturing  interests,  to  which  Mr.  Calhoun  made  some 
objections,  and  which  were  slightly  modified." 

It  may  doubtless  be  accepted  therefore  that  Calhoun  was  by 
that  time  already  falling  into  accord  with  Southern  opinion 
upon  the  general  subject^nd  though  there  seems  to  be  no 
further  positive  proof,  we  may  safely  assume  that  his  early 
biographer  is  right  in  saying  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  Act 
of  1824,  which  made  a  considerable  increase  in  the  rates  in 
general.  This  law  and  the  other  efforts  of  the  period  were 

85  Jenkins's  "  Life,"  p.  150.    \^ 

86  Ibid.,  and  see  Calhoun's  speech  of  February  15  and  16,  1833,  in  the 
Senate  on  the  Force  Bill,  "  Works,"  Vol.  II,  p.  206. 

87  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  p.  309. 


274  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

led  to  by  the  depression  of  1819,  the  changes  incident  to  the 
end  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  further  English  corn-laws  of 
about  that  date  and  the  great  changes  taking  place  in  our 
own  economic  growth. 

One  other  fact  in  the  matter  must  be  emphasized  here.  So 
strong  and  wide-spread  was  the^fSouthern  opposition  to  the 
"  American  system  '^-that  on  the  final  vote  upon  the  tariff  bill 
of  i824,88  out  of  the  56  members  of  the  House  from  the  seven 
contiguous  States  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Caro- 
lina, Georgia,  Alabama,  Louisiana  and  Mississippi,  but  one 
single  member  voted  Aye,  while  54  voted  Nay,  and  there  was 
one  not  voting.  This  fact  is  vital  to  be  remembered  in  regard 
to  the  struggle  between  the  North  and  South,  then  near  at 
hand,  and  it  will  be  found  that  a  similar  result  appeared  in  each 
one  of  the  great  tariff  votes  down  to  the  Compromise  Measure 
of  1833.  No  one  can  possibly  comprehend  the  state  of  feel- 
ing throughout  the  South,  unless  he  will  carefully  bear  in  mind 
this  remarkable  unanimity. 

S^  The  politics  of  South  Carolina  were  of  course  during  these 
years  and  ever  after  of  vital  moment  to  Calhoun,  and  there  is 
reason  to  suppose  that  from  an  early  date  he  had  a  powerful 
hand  in  the  management  of  the  State.-^Judge  William  Smith 
was  also  a  potent  factor  and  by  no  means  friendly  to  Calhoun. 
Twenty  years  the  senior,  Smith  had  been  president  of  the 
South  Carolina  Senate  at  the  time  when  Calhoun  was  in  the 
lower  house,  and  was  elected  to  a  vacancy  in  the  United  States 
Senate  in  1816.  In  this  capacity,  he  voted  against  Calhoun' s 
bonus  bill  —  looking  to  a  system  of  public  improvements  by  the 
federal  government  —  which  the  younger  man  had  introduced 
and  largely  made  his  own.  Probably,  Smith  looked  upon  Cal- 

88  While  this  bill  was  under  discussion  in  the  House,  Joel  R.  Poinsett 
wrote  from  Washington  on  February  26,  1824,  to  Judge  Hopkinson,  hoping 
that  delays  might  defeat  it,  and  adding  that,  if  it  should  pass  an  anti-tariff 
candidate  would  carry  all  the  Southern  States,  and  that  the  reaction  from 
it  "  will  be  certain  and  sudden  and  the  opposition  to  it  will  rise  on  its 
ruin.  ...  I  do  not  know  in  what  light  you  view  it,  but  I  would  sooner 
vote  for  a  war  with  the  holy  alliance  than  vote  for  this  bill.  I  believe  the 
operation  of  this  law,  if  it  becomes  one,  will  be  more  injurious  to  the 
character  of  the  people,  the  prosperity  of  the  country  and  the  durability 
of  the  Union,  than  a  long  expensive  and  bloody  war."  Letter  in  the  Hop- 
kinson Collection  in  possession  of  Edward  Hopkinson,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  275 

houn  as  a  mere  stripling  and  he  was  of  course  far  from  pleased 
to  see  the  immense  power  which  had  fallen  so  rapidly  into  the 
lap  of  his  youthful  rival.  There  was  not  room  in  the  politics 
of  South  Carolina  for  these  two  men. 

Smith  had  served  for  a  number  of  years  on  the  State 
bench,  but  it  may  be  surmised  that  he  always  hankered  after 
the  din  and  struggle  of  politics.  Of  unknown  origin  and  at 
one  time  of  intemperate  habits,  he  was  reformed  by  his  wife 
and  was  beyond  doubt  a  most  dangerous  enemy.  A  rugged, 
determined,  character,  a  bitter  hater,  not  knowing  what  defeat 
means,  he  continued  for  years  his  struggle  with  Calhoun  and 
only  finally,  when  the  latter  had  completely  triumphed,  re- 
moved to  Alabama  to  live  far  away  from  the  influence  of  his 
successful  rival.89 

If  Calhoun's  views  changed,  no  one  can  doubt  that  Smith 
always  changed,  too,  at  about  the  same  time,  possibly  even 
in  order  that  he  might  be  able  to  continue  the  struggle.  •  He 
belonged  at  the  time  with  which  we  are  now  concerned  to  the 
"  Radicals  "  in  South  Carolina,  who,  it  has  been  already  said, 
were  closely  related  to  the  party  of  the  same  name  in  Georgia 
and  were  generally  supporters  of  Crawford  for  the  Presi- 
dency, as  well  as  of  ultra  State  Rights  tendencies.90  In  1822, 
when  Smith's  term  in  the  Senate  was  about  to  expire,  Craw- 
ford wrote  to  a  friend :  "  great  exertions  will  be  made  by  the 
friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  prevent  the  election  of  Judge  Smith 
in  South  Carolina,  but  I  presume  without  effect."  01 

The  eminent  Georgian  was  in  part  right,  and  no  doubt  Cal- 
houn left  no  stone  unturned  in  the  effort  to  defeat  Smith.  He 
wrote  to  his  brother-in-law  about  State  politics  on  May  14 
and  again  on  July  i  of  that  year,  urging  him  to  remain  in 
public  affairs  and  then  went  on : 

I  am  glad  to  see  a  disposition  to  leave  Smith  at  home.  I  do 
not  think  that  he  fairly  represents  the  state.  He  is  narrow 
minded  and  I  believe  wedded  to  the  Georgia  politicians.  If  re- 

89 For  Smith  see  J.  B.  O'Neall's  "Bench  and  Bar,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  106-20 
and  Jervey's  "  Hayne,"  pp.  137  et  seq. 

90  "  The  Life  and  Times  of  Robert  Y.  Hayne,"  by  Theodore  D.  Jervey, 
p.  84;  Shipp's  "Crawford,"  p.  169.    Ante,  pp.  262,  263. 

91  Letter  printed  in  Shipp^s  "Crawford/'  p.  235. 


276  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

elected  I  doubt  not  that  he  will  come  out  openly,  which  would 
do  much  mischief.  Hayne  is  the  man  that  ought  to  be  elected. 
He  has  talents  and  eloquence  and  will  honour  the  state.  It 
would  be  imprudent  however  to  utter  those  sentiments  as  coming 
from  me. 

The  letter  went  on  with  further  references  to  home  politics, 
the  writer  urging  that  Warren  R.  Davis  should  be  elected  to 
the  House  from  Pendleton  in  place  of  John  Wilson,  the  then 
member,  whom  he  thought  honest  but  "  very  little  calculated 
for  the  post."  Finally,  he  enclosed  a  prospectus  of  the  in- 
tended Washington  Republican,  adding  that  "  it  will  be  con- 
ducted with  zeal  and  abilities,  and  I  hope  will  be  well  sup- 
ported. We  have  need  of  such  a  paper.  You  must  sub- 
scribe for  it,  and  get  as  many  others  as  you  can  conveniently. 
By  putting  it  into  the  hands  of  Joseph  Gresham,  or  some  other 
active  person  at  the  court  house,  I  dare  say  many  subscribers 
might  be  obtained.  Should  any  be  obtained,  care  must  be 
taken  to  have  the  list  returned." 

Some  evidence  as  to  Calhoun's  degree  of  success  in  the 
management  of  political  affairs  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that, 
when  the  Senatorial  election  came  to  be  held,  his  candidate, 
Robert  Y.  Hayne,  then  a  man  of  but  thirty-one  years  of  age, 
was  elected  over  Smith  by  a  vote  of  91  to  74,92  while  Wilson 
was  at  that  date  re-elected  to  the  House  but  was  defeated 
by  Warren  R.  Davis  in  1826,  by  the  narrow  margin  of  25 
votes.93 

But  the  struggle  with  Smith  was  by  no  means  over.  He  re- 
turned to  the  State  and  there  in  1824  attacked  Calhoun,  Mc- 
Duffie  and  Hayne  with  much  vigor  in  the  newspapers.94 
Elected  to  the  State  Legislature,  he  still  waged  the  same  bitter 
warfare,  and  introduced  resolutions  aimed  against  some  of 
the  leading  policies  of  his  enemies,  particularly  internal  im- 
provements and  a  tariff  for  protection.  These  resolutions 
were,  moreover,  carried  by  him  in  the  House  in  December, 
1825,  by  a  two-thirds  vote  and  they  got  through  the  Senate 

92Jervey's  "Hayne,"  p.  143. 
3  Letter  of  Calhoun  in  "  Correspondence,"  p.  238. 
»*Jervey's  "Hayne,"  pp.  169,  -et  seq. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  277 

by  a  majority  of  one.  Calhoun's  personal  and  political  friend, 
Simkins,  protested  against  them  in  the  Senate.95 
V'.lQ.  have  the  Legislature  of  his  own  State  thus  declare 
'against  one  policy,  which  was  a  leading  one  with  him  at  that 
very  time,  and  another  with  which  he  had  been  closely  asso- 
ciated but  a  few  years  earlier  must  have  been  gall  and  worm^ 
wood  to  Calhoun,  but  the  cup  was  not  yet  full,  j  In  December, 
1826,  Smith  was  again  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate, 
after  the  death  of  John  Gaillard,  by  a  vote  of  83  to  81  for 
D.  E.  Huger.  The  Georgia  papers  were  delighted  at  this 
choice  of  a  Crawford  supporter,  the  Constitutionalist  of  Au- 
gusta declaring  it  to  be  evidence  that  "  Calhoun  was  not  all 
powerful  in  the  State  of  South  Carolina."  96  Later  pages 
will  show  how  little  foundation  for  this  view  remained  in  a 
few  years,  serious  as  was  perhaps  the  blow  to  Calhoun's  pres- 
tige in  1826. 

In  all  this  contest  there  was  evidently  little  real  difference 
of  principle  between  the  two  contending  factions.  It  was 
almost  entirely  a  struggle  for  power  between  leaders,  and  just 
what  were  the  actual  opinions  of  Calhoun  or  Smith  in  regard 
to  the  fundamental  questions  at  issue  is  very  doubtful.  One 
house  of  the  legislature  passed  in  December,  1824,  the  Ramsay 
resolutions  97  protesting  in  the  strongest  terms  against  any 

95  Ibid.,  p.  188.    South  Carolina  Laws,  etc.,  1825,  pp.  88,  89.    The  same 
resolutions  had  passed  the  Senate  at  the  prior  session  but  failed  in  the 
House  (Herman  V.  Ames's  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  p.  136). 
The  first  resolution  was  that  "  Congress  does  not  possess  the  power  under 
the  constitution,  to  adopt  a  general  system  of  internal  improvement  as  a 
national  measure,"  and  the  fifth,  "That  it  is  an  unconstitutional  exercise 
of  power,   on  the  part  of  Congress,  to   lay  duties  to  protect  domestic 
manufactures." 

96  Jervey's   "  Hayne,"   p.    193.    Gaillard  had  died  at  a  time  when  the 
South  Carolina  Legislature  was  not  in  session,  and  the  Governor  appointed 
William  Harper  to  fill  the  vacancy.    Thomas  Cooper  wrote  that  Harper 
would  go  all  lengths  in  favor  of  internal  improvements  and  against  State 
rights,  "  provided  Calhoun  does  not  lead  him,"  but  feared  he  might  be 
gained  over  by  Calhoun,  as,  he  says,  William  C.  Preston  had  been.     (Let- 
ters of  Thomas  Cooper,  1825-32,  printed  in  "  American  Historical  Review," 
Vol.  VI  (1900-01,  p.  728).     Harper  was  in  a  few  years  one  of  the  strongest 
supporters    of    nullification,   but    was    evidently   not   gained   over    at   the 
time,  for  it  may  be  assumed  that  in  the  election  by  the  Legislature  the 
Calhoun  -forces  supported  Huger.    Huger,  on  the  other  hand,  became  an 
opponent  of   Calhoun   in  a   few  years   on  the  nullification   issue.    Such 
were  the  changes  in  South  Carolina  upon  that  question. 

97  Charleston  "  Courier "  of  December  9,  1824. 


2;8  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

claim  of  right  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  interfere  in 
any  way  in  relation  to  the  Negro  Seamen  Act,  while  the  other 
house  tabled  these  and  passed  instead  by  a  large  majority  the 
Prioleau  resolutions,98  which  were  as  mild  as  well  could  be, 
and  spoke  of  having  respectfully  considered  the  letter  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  upon  the  subject.  On  the 
other  hand,  both  branches  of  the  Legislature  united  at  the 
very  next  session  on  the  ultra  Smith  resolutions.  These  moves 
were  all  beyond  doubt  personal  politics,  the  mere  game  of 
fence  and  spar  for  position  among  the  leaders." 

A  charge  against  Calhoun's  character  made  by  John  Quincy 
Adams  at  about  the  time  of  his  career  with  which  we  are  now 
concerned  must  be  noticed.  He  maintains  more  or  less  clearly 
that  in  a  number  of  instances,  —  during  their  Presidential 
rivalry  and  later,  —  the  Secretary  of  War  was  not  direct,  but 
would  profess  friendship  for  one  whom  his  supporters  were  all 
at  the  same  time  actively  hounding.  Again,  the  pages  of  the 
Diary  complain  that  Calhoun  was  forever  seeking  the  favor 
of  the  multitude  and  in  one  instance  reports  General  Brown 
as  speaking  of  his  "  excessive  thirst  of  ...  turning  every- 
thing into  instruments  for  the  promotion  of  his  own  popular- 
ity." In  the  same  direction,  too,  Adams  writes  that  in  1821, 
at  the  time  of  the  bitter  quarrel  between  Jackson  and  Judge 
Fromentin,  Calhoun  wanted,  —  in  order  to  escape  the  unpopu- 
larity of  not  nominating  Fromentin  and  thus  seeming  to  take 
sides,  —  to  have  the  President  send  his  nomination  in  to  the 
Senate  and  at  the  same  time  confidentially  communicate  the 
whole  correspondence,  and  thus  leave  it  to  the  Senate  to  reject 
the  nomination,  if  members  should  see  fit.100 

That  this  was  an  instance  of  over-refinement  can  hardly  be 
doubted,  and  it  may  have  beenjnduced  by  the  desire  to  avoid 


.,  of  December  22,  1824. 

99  W.  J.  Grayson  in  his  "  Memoir  of  James  Louis  Petrigu,"  p.  93  em- 
phasizes this  fact. 

100  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  p.  442;  Vol.  VI,  pp.  277,  537-    The 
color  so  often  given  to  those  pages  is  shown  by  an  entry  (ibid.,  Vol.  VII, 
p.  69)  to  the  effect  that  Clay  thought  in  1825  that  Calhoun  "  intrigued  " 
for  votes  against  his  confirmation  as  Secretary  of  State  by  the  Senate. 
There  was  surely  no  valid  reason  why  he  should  not  try  to  defeat  the 
nomination,  but  to  intrigue  is  indirect  and  underhand,  so  that  word  is 
selected. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  279 

an  unpopular  act;  but  who  shall  'scape  a  whipping,  if  public 
men  are  to  be  so  lightly  condemned?  It  is  difficult  to  meet 
specifically  charges  that  are  at  best  vague  and  were  written 
years  ago  by  one  of  the  most  jealous  and  bitter  of  the  sons  of 
men,  in  the  small  hours  of  the  morning,  when  alone  and  stung 
by  opposition  or  impending  failure.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten 
that  the  opinions  expressed  were  based  largely  on  partisan 
whisperings  of  lieutenants,  always  high-colored  and  often 
false.  No  reputation  can  stand,  if  we  are  to  accept  the  thrice- 
distilled  gall  of  the  suspicious  author  of  the  Diary. 

Calhoun's  career  in  general  must  furnish  the  answer  to  these 
charges.  His  course  on  the  Compensation  Bill  is  in  point  for 
the  period  already  covered,  and  his  later  history  will  show 
plainly  that  he  often  did  unpopular  things  and  would  boldly 
face  situations  of  grave  difficulty  which  could  easily  have  been 
avoided.^  At  the  same  time,  he  was  beyond  question  a  man 
of  the  intellectual  type  and  by  no  means  one  of  those  born 
fighters  who  hurl  themselves  blindly  against  every  obstruc- 
tion; he  had  the  lawyer's  habit,  too/'of  always  emphasizing 
one  side  of  a  case  and  of  skillfully  concealing  the  other,  but  he 
cannot  be  justly  classed  as  underhand  and  indirect.  What 
successful  public  man  has  ever  been  in  the  habit  of  blurting 
out  the  whole  naked  truth  ? 

Calhoun  had,  moreover,  open  and  bitter  quarrels  with  too 
many  of  his  contemporaries  to  have  been  a  man  of  the  indirect 
type.  — Some  of  these  have  been  mentioned,  and  others  will 
appear  later.  Already  at  this  early  day,  he  and  Clay  had  had  a  '' 
falling  out.  It  is  said  101  that  their  relations  were  strained 
about  the  time  (March,  1816)  when  the  congressional  caucus 
was  held  to  nominate  a  successor  to  Madison.  Calhoun  had 
at  first  opposed  holding  one,  but  attended  in  the  end  as  an 
ardent  and  leading  supporter  of  Monroe,  while  Clay  was  to 
the  last  opposed  to  the  meeting.  During  this  dispute,  their 
strong  wills  clashed  and  a  coolness  arose  between  them,  which 
was  never  really  removed.  How  often  did  they  later  have 
desperate  encounters,  marked  on  both  sides  by  anything  but 

ioijervey's  "Hayne,"  p.  66:  McMaster's  "United  States,"  Vol.  IV,  p. 
364. 


28o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  methods  of  indirection!  With  Benton  and  many  others, 
too,  the  same  was  the  case. 

It  has  been  seen  that  while  Calhoun  was  a  member  of  the 
House  his  family  did  not  come  to  Washington  with  him,  and 
he  lived  in  a  mess.  While  he  was  Secretary  of  War,  however, 
the  case  was  otherwise.  He  and  Mrs.  Calhoun  made  the  long 
journey  in  November,  iSi/,  in  their  own  carriage,  bringing 
their  children  (then  two)  with  them,  and  the  father  wrote 
that  the  children  stood  the  travelling  much  better  and  were 
"  far  less  troublesome  than  we  expected."  Andrew,  the  eldest, 
was  not  well,  but  his  chill  was  thought  to  be  less  severe  on  the 
day  of  the  letter  than  it  had  been. 

Arrived  in  Washington,  they  seem  to  have  stayed  for  a  time 
with  Lowndes  and  not  to  have  had  permanent  quarters  until 
March,  1818,  when  they  took  a  house  on  the  south  side  of  E. 
St.  North,  between  6th  and  7th  Sts.,  W.,  in  the  block  east  of 
the  post  office  department.102  This  residence  was  near  that 
occupied  by  William  Winston  Seaton  (one  of  the  editors  of  the 
National  Intelligencer),  whose  wife  wrote  to  a  friend: 

I  have  mentioned  the  very  agreeable  accession  to  our  neigh- 
borhood in  the  Calhouns.  You  could  not  fail  to  love  and  ap- 
preciate as  I  do,  her  charming  qualities ;  a  devoted  mother,  tender 
wife,  industrious,  cheerful,  intelligent,  with  the  most  perfectly 
equable  temper.  Mr.  Calhoun  is  a  profound  statesman  and  ele- 
gant scholar,  you  know  by  public  report ;  but  his  manners  in  a 
private  circle  are  endearing,  as  well  as  captivating;  and  it  is  as 
much  impossible  not  to  love  him  at  home,  as  it  would  be  to  re- 
fuse your  admiration  of  his  oratorical  powers  in  the  Hall  of 
Representatives.  Since  his  absence  in  Carolina,103  his  wife  has 
spent  much  time  with  me,  coming  down  in  the  morning  and  stop- 

102  A  reproduction  of  an  old  Washington  directory  of  1822,  owned  by 
Mr.  J.  C.  Fitzpatrick  of  the  MSS.  Department  in  the  Library  of  Congress, 
gives  this  as  the  Calhoun  residence  in  that  year,  and  presumably  it  was 
the  one  to  which  they  went  in  1818.  The  same  reprint  has  W.  W.  Seaton 
as  living  on  E  St.  North,  opposite  the  general  post  office. 

103"  William  Winston  Seaton,  a  biographical  sketch,"  pp.  135,  136.  Mrs. 
Seaton's  letter,  as  printed,  is  dated  "March,  1818,"  but  this  is^  probably  an 
error,  for  the  session  of  Congress  did  not  end  until  April  2Oth  and  Cal- 
houn did  not  go  South  until  after  that  time.  See  McDuffie's  statement  in 
the  Mix  investigation,  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXXI,  p.  405,  and  see 
also  Calhoun's  letter  to  Charles  Tait,  dated  July  20,  printed  in  "Gulf 
States  Historical  Magazine,"  Vol.  I  (September,  1902),  pp.  92,  93. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  281 

ping  till  ten  at  night,  and  we  generally  go  to  church  together  on 
Sunday. 

In  the  summer  of  1823,  the  Secretary  of  War  and  his  family 
were  out  at  Georgetown,  where  they  had  probably  temporarily 
rented  a  house.  Calhoun  wrote  on  August  7th  that  they  were 
on  the  heights  and  found  the  residence  delightful.  "  The 
health  of  the  children/'  so  the  devoted  father  went  on,  "  is 
very  much  improved  by  the  fine  air  and  the  abundant  exercise 
in  the  Grove."  It  must  have  been  not  very  many  months  after 
this  that  they  bought  a  place, — "  Oakly," —  at  Georgetown 
which  became  their  residence  for  at  least  a  year  or  two.104 
This  was  after  Calhoun  had  given  up  hope  of  the  Presidency 
for  the  time  being  but  was  almost  certain  of  election  to  second 
place,  and  Mrs.  Smith  wrote  on  April  n,  1824: 

Mr.  Calhoun  has  removed  to  his  house  on  the  hills  behind 
George  Town  and  will  live  I  suspect  quite  retired  the  rest  of 
the  session.  He  does  not  look  well  and  feels  very  deeply  the 
disappointment  of  his  ambition. 

It  must  remain  a  matter  of  conjecture  to  what  extent  this 
judgment  was  justified. 

"  Oakly  "  had  apparently  been  purchased  in  part  at  least  by 
the  mother-in-law  and  was  probably  sold  again  in  i828.105 
But  before  this  date,  some  time  during  the  year  1826,  they  had 
concluded  to  fix  their  permanent  residence  in  the  South,  in- 
stead of  Washington.  Calhoun  wrote  that  this  change  of  in- 
tention was  partly  owing  to  a  desperate  illness  in  his  family. 
His  son  John  hovered  long  between  life  and  death  in  Wash- 
ington during  the  spring  and  summer  of  1826,  and  they  finally 
determined,  as  a  last  resource,  to  take  him  South.  On  the 
journey  the  boy  continued  to  sink,  until  they  reached  Salisbury, 
when  medicines, —  or  the  rest  and  change, —  restored  him, 
and  they  were  later  able  to  go  on  and  reach  home  where  "  on 
the  very  day  of  our  arrival  his  cough  ceased  and  has  not  since 
returned."  This  harrowing  experience  was  enough  to  induce 
their  change,  and  to  it  were  doubtless  to  be  added  reasons  of 

10*  J.  Q.  Adams's  "  Diary,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  300 ;  "  Calhoun  Correspondence," 
P-  233- 
108 "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp.  256,  257. 


282  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

economy,  the  inconvenience  and  even  danger  of  the  long  jour- 
neys, and  possibly  some  political  motives.106 

After  this  date,  Calhoun's  letters  during  the  session  are  all 
dated  from  Washington.  Presumably,  they  rented  or  boarded 
in  the  capital,  and  the  children  were  no  longer  all  brought 
North,— there  were  six  in  1827,— but  were  left  with  either 
friends  or  relatives  and  at  school.  Mrs.  Calhoun  still  came  to 
Washington  with  her  husband  sometimes  for  a  part  of  the 
year,  but  the  long  journey  and  the  separation  from  the  chil- 
dren were  of  course  serious  troubles  and  in  1826-27  and  in 
1827-28  she  remained  in  the  South,107  and  in  the  spring  of 
1829,  she  went  home,  we  are  told  by  one  of  her  friends,108 
"•not  to  return  again,  at  least  for  four  years," — words  which, 
of  course,  have  reference  to  Calhoun's  expected  succession  to 
the  Presidency  after  Jackson's  intended  one  term. 

In  South  Carolina  Calhoun  still  owned  a  plantation  in  Abbe- 
ville, but  Pendleton  was  already  his  home.  He  seems  to  have 
begun  to  live  there  in  1825,  at  a  place  called  Clergy  Hall,  which 
his  mother-in-law  had  rented  as  early  as  1819;  but  during 
1826  he  either  bought  this  place  or  acquired  it  by  exchange, 
and  intended  at  one  time  to  build  a  new  house  "  on  the  hill 
to  the  left  of  the  road  to  the  court  house."  But  this  purpose 
does  not  seem  to  have  been  carried  out,  and  he  probably  altered 
the  existing  mansion.109  His  home  here  was  the  one  known 
as  Fort  Hill,  where  he  lived  for  the  balance  of  his  life.  The 
name  was  derived  from  "  an  old  fortification  built  by  General 
Pickens,  in  Revolutionary  times  to  overawe  the  Cherokees," 
situated  on  a  hill  visible  in  the  distance  from  the  House.110 

106  Letters  of  Calhoun  dated  May  28,  June  14,  and  December  24,  1826, 
and  February  14  and  August  26,  1827 ;  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  233-236,  237- 
240. 

107  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp.  238,  256,  257. 

108  "The  First  Forty  Years  of  Washington  Society,"  by  Mrs.  Samuel 
Harrison  Smith,  p.  290. 

109  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  p.  236,  for  the  intention  to  build  a  new 
house,  but  this  plan  was  contingent  on  securing  certain  land,  and  Mrs. 
Mell  (foot-note  no  infra)  says  clearly  that  part  of  the  house  was  quite 
old.    See  also  "Correspondence,"  235,  236. 

110  "  John  C.  Calhoun,  from  a  Southern  Standpoint,"  by  Charles  Cotes- 
worth  Pinck'ney,  in  "  Lippincott's  Magazine,"  Vol.  LXII  (July,  1808),  pp. 
81-90,  and  see  Mrs.  Patrick  Hues  Mell's  article  on  "John  C.  Calhoun's 
Home  at  Fort  Hill"  in  the  Charleston  "News  "  of  Sunday,  April  30, 


•V7C 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  283 

The  mansion  escaped  the  passions  of  the  Civil  War  and  is  still 
standing  to-day. 

During  much  at  least  of  the  time  of  Calhoun's  residence  in 
Washington  and  Georgetown,  his  mother-in-law  was  a  part  of 
his  family,  and  he  had  expressed  to  her  in  1820  nl  the  hope 
that  she  would  take  up  her  permanent  abode  with  him. 
She  was  a  woman  of  strong  religious  tendencies  and  evidently 
highly  evangelical.  On  one  occasion,  we  learn  that  she  pur- 
sued with  almost  daily  visits  a  Mrs.  Tasslet,  who  is  described 
as  being  at  the  time  "  the  ghost  of  what  she  was,"  and  whom 
Mrs.  Colhoun  thought  to  be  under  a  religious  concern.  The 
writer  much  feared  that  in  the  distracted  state  of  Mrs.  Tass- 
let, Mrs.  Colhoun  was  not  "  the  most  useful  friend  she  could 
have." 

Again,  in  the  autumn  of  1822,  a  revival  was  held  in  Wash- 
ington and  two  young  pastors  had  been  brought  in  as  aids. 
With  one  of  these,  Mrs.  Colhoun  went  out  despite  a  drenching 
rain,  in  order,  according  to  her  daughter's  expression,  "  to 
beat  up  recruits"  for  church  in  the  evening.  The  eloquent 
preacher  was  said  never  to  have  been  known  to  exhort  without 
making  at  least  half  a  dozen  converts,  and  only  a  few  evenings 
before  one  of  the  gayest  and  most  fashionable  young  ladies  had 
been  convicted  and  converted.  So  overcome  by  her  feelings 
was  this  butterfly  of  fashion,  whose  name  is  suppressed,  that 
she  had  run  forward  and  thrown  herself  on  the  exhorter's 
shoulder  and  lain  there,  sobbing  and  crying,  "  while  he  in- 
quired into  her  feelings  and  talked  most  p^  "erfully  and  pa- 
thetically with  her."  m 

Perhaps,  such  performances  as  these  and  some  of  the  daugh- 
ter's expressions  as  to  her  mother's  course  of  action  may  lead 

1905.  Another  writer  dates  the  old  fort  back  still  further  to  the  wars  of 
the  Indians  among  themselves,  "  Scribner's  Magazine,"  Vol.  XXI,  (April, 
1880),  pp.  802-805. 

111  Letter  of  May  7  in  "  Correspondence,"  p.  173.    She  was,  however,  at 
least  not  always  with  him.    See  his  letters  to  her  in  the  spring  and  sum- 
mer of  1826,  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  233-236. 

112  Mrs.  Smith's  "First  Forty  Years,"  etc.,  pp.  153,  15*4,  159,  160.     Per- 
haps, this  revival  was  in  part  owing  to  the  prevalence  of  cholera  and  other 
diseases  at  that  time  in  parts  of  the  country.     In  Washington,  however, 
it  was  not  severe,  and  the  reports  of  deaths  from  cholera  printed  in  the 
"  National  Intelligencer  "  for  August-October  call  for  but  25  deaths  in  the 
three  months. 


284  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

us  to  think  that  Calhoun  and  his  wife  did  not  fully  sympathize 
in  this  matter  with  Mrs.  Colhoun.  But  no  one  can  fail  to  be 
pleased  with  another  scene  of  the  time  from  the  Calhoun  in- 
terior. In  March,  1820,  their  infant  daughter  grew  ill  and 
died  on  the  22nd  of  the  month.  This  was  before  the  days  of 
trained  nurses,  but  their  absence  was  at  least  lightened.  All 
the  family's  acquaintance  volunteered  assistance.  Mrs.  Smith 
stayed  two  days  and  sat  up  one  night,  and  she  adds: 113 

I  never  in  my  life  witnessed  such  attention.  Ladies  of  the 
first  and  gayest  fashion,  as  well  as  particular  friends,  pressed, 
their  attendance  in  a  way  not  to  be  denied.  The  President  called 
every  day,  and  his  daughter  Mrs.  Hay,  although  in  the  midst 
of  bridal  festivities,  came  three  evenings  successively  to  beg  to 
sit  up  and  was  denied  as  other  ladies  were  engaged.  .  .  .  Mrs. 
Adams  in  the  like  manner  and  twenty  others  would  attend.  .  .  . 
All  this  was  not  a  mere  tribute  to  rank,  no, —  I  am  persuaded 
much  of  it  was  from  that  good  will  which  both  Mr.  and  Mrs. 
Calhoun  have  universally  excited;  they  are  really  beloved. 

Calhoun  and  his  family  took  no  little  part  during  these  years 
in  the  social  life  of  Washington,  and  he  seems  to  have  been 
known  in  advance  as  having  social  talents.  Mrs.  Smith  wrote 
in  1817  of  every  one  as  being  pleased  with  his  and  Wirt's  ap- 
pointments and  added :  "  they  will  be  most  agreeable  additions 
to  our  society."  The  forecast  was  certainly  right,  and  Cal- 
houn gave  and  received  dinners ;  and  Mrs.  Smith  114  tells  us 
that  in  February,  1819,  he  gave  a  very  large  ball — "five 
rooms  crowded  " —  which  she  "  could  not  resist  attending." 
Some  few  years  later  (1829)  the  Smiths  had  several  parties 
at  home,  of  which  the  largest  of  about  forty  persons  "  was 
made  in  compliment  to  our  old  friends,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Cal- 
houn." 

On  another  occasion,  in  1819,  after  having  been  to  hear 
Clay  speak  on  the  Seminole  war,  Mrs.  Smith  dined  at  the 
Calhouns',  of  which  occasion  she  wrote  as  follows: 

At  dinner  I  gave  Mr.  Calhoun  an  ample  detail  of  the  speech, 
which  led  to  a  great  deal  of  conversation  of  men,  measures  and 

113  Ibid.,  pp.  149,  150. 

"*  "  First  Forty  Years,"  etc.,  p.  148. 


IN  MONROE'S  CABINET  285 

facts.  You  know  how  frank  and  communicative  he  is,  and  con- 
sidering I  was  very  much  animated  by  the  scene  of  the  morn- 
ing, perhaps  you  will  not  be  surprised  at  our  conversing  without 
any  interruption  until  9  o'clock.  I  several  times  after  tea  begged 
him  to  read  or  write  and  make  no  stranger  of  me,  but  this  his 
politeness  would  not  permit  him  to  do.  ...  At  last  I  jumped 
up  declaring  I  would  keep  him  no  longer  from  business,  and  pro- 
posed to  Mrs.  Calhoun  to  adjourn  to  our  chamber.115 

There  was  probably  no  period  in  Calhoun's  public  career  that 
was  on  the  whole  so  full  of  happiness  as  the  more  than  seven 
years  during  which  he  held  the  position  of  Secretary  of  War. 
But  forty-three  years  of  age  at  its  close,  he  had  apparently 
every  reason  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  contented  with  his  lot. 
Happily  married  and  surrounded  with  a  family  of  five  children, 
in  whom  he  was  deeply  interested,  taking  no  little  part  in  the 
social  life  of  the  capital,  and  indulging  constantly  in  that 
highly  interested  and  interesting  exchange  of  views  with  the 
bright  men  and  women  about  him,  which  always  character- 
ized him,  he  had,  too,  broader  and  perhaps  more  intoxicating 
causes  of  contentment.  Ambition,  the  guiding  star  of  some 
and  the  ruin  of  others,  was  undoubtedly  a  part  of  his  nature, 
and  surely  he  had  reason  to  be  satisfied  as  to  his  position  in  the 
public  eye  and  the  promise  of  the  future.  Feeling  his  powers 
and  making  a  splendid  record  in  the  office  he  held,  and  with 
such  a  meteoric  rise  as  his  had  been,  since  he  was  sent  to  Con- 
gress in  1811,  the  highest  office  in  the  country  seemed  certainly 
and  easily  within  his  grasp.  Probably  there  was  not  a  man 
in  public  life  whom  so  many  would  have  picked  out  as  likely 
to  attain  that  highest  ambition  of  any  American. 

Possibly,  the  cold  critic  might  have  thought, —  with  John 
Quincy  Adams, —  that  his  rise  had  been  too  rapid  for  his  own 
good.  It  is  a  valuable  training  for  all  men  to  serve  during 
their  early  years  in  minor  places  and  bear  the  bufferings  of  the 
struggle  on  the  lower  rungs  of  fame's  ladder,  to  do  a  good 
share  of  drudgery  and  endure  the  humiliations  of  many  kinds 
which  plastic  youth  takes  so  easily.  But  Calhoun  had  had 
none  of  this.  Practising  law  but  for  two  or  three  years  and 

115  Mrs.  Smith's  "First  Forty  Years"  etc.,  p.  147. 


286  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C  CALHOUN 

even  then  in  the  first  ranks,  his  nine  weeks'  service  in  the  State 
Legislature  was  far  too  short  a  term  to  temper  and  mould  the 
mettle  within  him,  so  that  it  should  slowly  crystallize  into 
proper  form,  and  in  the  House  of  Representatives  he  rushed 
with  the  speed  of  a  meteor  to  intoxicating  national  fame  and 
power.  The  reader  must  decide  for  himself  whether  this  was 
an  advantage  in  the  long  run  to  the  brilliant  almost  stripling 
or  whether  his  career  might  otherwise  have  been  even  greater 
and  free  from  some  of  the  mistakes  with  which  he  has  been 
charged. 


CHAPTER  XI 

ADAMS   AND   CALHOUN 

Political  Rivalry  —  The  Presidential  Election  of  1824-25 
—  The  Washington  Republican  —  Troubles  in  the  Republi- 
can Camp  —  Calhoun's  Loss  of  Pennsylvania  —  Withdraws 
from  Candidacy  —  Elected  Vice-President  —  John  Randolph 
— "  Patrick  Henry  "  and  "  Onslow." 

THE  reader  will  have  observed  how  close  were  the  relations 
prevailing  between  Adams  and  Calhoun  in  the  early  years  of 
Monroe's  administration.  They  were,  indeed,  at  that  time 
intimate  friends,  entertained  each  other  socially,  met  for  con- 
versation and  comparison  of  opinion,  and  presumably  Calhoun 
thought  of  Adams  about  as  well  as  Adams  did  of  him.  The 
latter's  "  Diary "  for  a  few  years  after  1818  has  repeated 
references  to  its  author's  admiration  of  the  South  Carolinian, 
speaking  of  him,  for  instance,  as  "  a  man  of  fair  and  candid 
mind,  of  honorable  principles,  of  clear  and  quick  understand- 
ing, of  cool  self-possession,  of  enlarged  philosophical  views, 
and  of  ardent  patriotism.  He  is  above  all  sectional  and  fac- 
tious prejudices  more  than  any  other  statesman  of  this  Union 
with  whom  I  have  ever  acted.  He  is  more  sensitive  to  the 
transient  manifestations  of  momentary  public  opinion,  more 
afraid  of  the  first  impressions  of  the  public  opinion  than  I  am." 
Probably,  the  frigid  and  forbidding  Puritan  has  recorded  of 
few  men,  as  he  once  does  of  Calhoun :  "I  took  a  long  evening 
ramble  "  with  him. 

In  the  end  of  1819,  too,  Adams  urged  his  colleague  to  accept 
the  Mission  to  France,  telling  him  that  he  "  expected  more 
from  him  than  from  any  man  living  to  the  benefit  of  the  public 
service  of  this  nation,"  and  intimating  that  a  residence  in 
Europe  would  much  enlarge  his  sphere  of  usefulness.  Cal- 
houn admitted  this  but  said  he  could  not  meet  the  expense. 

287 


288  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Whether  Adams  was  partially  and  perhaps  unconsciously  in- 
fluenced in  this  suggestion  by  the  desire  to  remove  to  a  dis- 
tance one  who  might  become  a  rival  to  his  ambition  must  re- 
main unknown.1 

There  was  one  quite  evident  reason  for  Adams's  admira- 
tion. Though  he  had  broken  away  from  the  old  Federalists 
at  the  time  when  they  wanted  to  separate  the  East  from  the 
Union,  he  was  at  no  time  a  real  Republican  but  always  in 
thorough  accord  with  the  centralizing  tendencies  of  the  party 
he  had  left.  Calhoun,  too,  was  at  this  date  still  in  favor  of  a 
-"strong  and  splendid  federal  government  and  not  as  yet  much 
troubled  with  scruples  as  to  constitutional  power.  He  re- 
mained still  the  Calhoun  of  the  House  of  Representatives  dur- 
ing and  after  the  War  of  1812.  No  wonder  then  that  in- 
stances arose  occasionally  in  which  Adams  wrote,  as  quoted 
above  from  the  Diary  of  1819,  of  the  younger  man  as  being 
above  all  sectional  prejudices,  or  in  1822  that  he  "  has  no  petty 
scruples  about  constructive  powers  and  state  rights."  2  Nor 
can  it  in  my  opinion  be  doubted  that  these  expressions  of  opin- 
ion  represented  fairly  well  Calhoun's  opinions  at  that  time  and 
for  a  few  years  later. 

^3ut  the  friendship  between  the  two  men  could  not  stand  the 
rain  when  they  became  rivals  for  the  Presidency  of  1825.- 
In  that  memorable  contest,  when  the  leading  characters  of  the 
Revolution  had  reached  a  time  of  life  too  far  advanced  to  bear 
the  burden  of  the  office  and  when  what  has  been  called  "  the 
Virginia  dynasty  "  was  coming  to  an  end,  there  were  a  number 
of  competitors.  It  was  the  turn  of  tide  in  the  era  of  good 
feeling  and  there  was  no  opposition  to  the  Republican  party; 
but  it  split  for  the  time  into  numerous  factions  guided  by  per- 
sonal preference  rather  than  by  difference  of  principle. 
Adams  was  longing  for  the  office  by  March,  1818,  and  his 
name  had  been  suggested  by  friends  in  New  England  as  early 
as  1817.  Crawford  and  Clay  were  also  already  leading  can- 
didates and  by  1818  Jackson's  friends  were  pushing  his  claims.8 

1  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  p.  361 ;  ibid.,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  407,  477,  512, 
524- 

2  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  75. 

8  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  62,  107,   198.    Schouler's  "United 
States,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  238. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  289 

To  these  names  were  added  ere  long  those  of  Lowndes  and 
Calhoun.  Crawford  was  undoubtedly  at  first  the  main  repre- 
sentative of  the  Southern  interest,  but  he  met  with  serious 
rebuffs  in  his  own  State  in  1819  and  1821,  and  it  is  likely  he 
was  right  in  thinking  that  these  defeats  inspired  the  two 
South  Carolinians  with  the  hope  to  supplant  him.  In  1819 
his  personal  enemy  Clark,  with  whom  he  had  had  a  duel,  was 
elected  Governor  of  Georgia  over  Troup  by  a  narrow  major- 
ity, and  again  in  the  fall  of  1821  Clark  defeated  Troup,  this 
time  by  only  2  votes,  it  seems.  Crawford  wrote  with  acri- 
mony from  Washington  in  November  that  he  presumed  there 
was  "  great  joy  in  one  of  the  departments,  at  least,  at  this 
place,"  and  added  that  Calhoun  was  known  to  have  expressed 
the  opinion  that,  if  Clark  should  again  succeed,  Georgia  would 
be  against  Crawford.  Some  months  later  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  was  still  writing  bitterly  of  "  our  Mars,"  who, 
he  complains,  gets  all  the  offices  and  is  regarded  by  the  public 
as  "  the  lord  of  the  ascendant."  He  goes  on  that  Calhoun 
and  Lowndes,  looking  upon  him  as  hors  du  combat ',  supposed 
"  the  Southern  interest  would  become  the  property  of  the  first 
adventurer.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  made  a  tour  of  observation  in 
Pennsylvania,  whilst  Mr.  Lowndes  kept  watch  at  home." 

According  to  Crawford,  some  time  prior  to  these  events, 
the  Missouri  contest  and  the  election  of  Taylor  over  Lowndes 
as  Speaker  in  November  of  1820,  upon  Clay's  resignation,  had 
convinced  Calhoun  that  a  geographical  party  had  been  formed, 
which  would  for  several  years  control  the  course  of  events: 
and  during  the  following  Congressional  session  and  until  late 
in  the  year  1821,  the  same  authority  tells  us  that  Calhoun  had 
openly  supported  the  claims  of  Adams  to  the  Presidency.  He 
further  adds,  too,  that  on  October  16,  1821,  before  Clark's 
second  triumph  and  shortly  after  Calhoun's  return  from  his 
tour  of  observation  in  Pennsylvania, —  which  presumably  re- 
fers to  his  visit  to  Bedford  Springs  in  September,  1821, — 
Calhoun  voluntarily  assured  him  that  he  would  under  no  cir- 
cumstances be  a  candidate,  and  Crawford  was  evidently  of  the 
opinion  that  Calhoun  had  in  view  the  attainment  of  the  office 
by  himself  only  some  years  later.  Adams,  too,  writes  that  in 


290  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

March  of  1821  Calhoun  had  "  no  view  to  himself  for  the 
presidency." 

Soon  after  Clark's  second  election  in  Georgia,  however,  ac- 
cording to  Crawford,  Calhoun  threw  himself  on  Pennsylvania, 
— "  the  old  stamping-ground,"  "  his  native  State," —  and 
Lowndes  was  also  nominated  by  members  of  the  South  Caro- 
lina Legislature,  under  the  same  belief  that  the  Southern  in- 
terest had  become  derelict.  The  appearance  of  these  two 
nominees  did  not  escape  Adams's  close  observation  of  the 
field,  but  as  late  as  January,  1822,  he  was  told  by  one  of  his 
lieutenants  who  had  conversed  with  Calhoun  that  the  latter 
looked  upon  himself  as  a  candidate  only  in  case  the  nominee 
should  be  a  Southerner  and  that  he  would  not  oppose  the 
claims  of  Adams  or  any  other  Northerner.4 

Most  of  these  suspicions  and  fancies  may  probably  be  dis- 
missed as  of  little  consequence,  nor  is  it  easy  to  see  why  Cal- 
houn should  not  change  his  mind  and  determine  later  to  be  a 
candidate  at  the  then  approaching  election.  There  is  not  the 
least  reason  to  suppose  that  his  earlier  action  was  meant  to 
mislead  his  rivals.  What  is  clear  in  the  matter  is  that,  after 
the  second  defeat  of  Crawford's  candidate  Troup  in  Georgia 
in  the  fall  of  1821,  Lowndes  was  nominated  for  the  presi- 
dency by  a  caucus  of  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  held  on 
December  18,  1821;  and  that  on  December  28  Calhoun  was 
called  upon  at  his  lodgings  in  Washington  in  the  evening  by 
a  deputation  of  members  of  Congress  and  asked  to  allow  the 
use  of  his  name  as  a  candidate.  After  some  consideration, 
he  consented  and  agreed  to  stand.5  From  this  time  on  for  a 

*  Letters  of  Crawford  printed  in  Shipp's  "Crawford,"  pp.  229,  230,  232, 
233,  and  in  Henry  Adams's  "  Life  of  Gallatin,"  pp.  579-582.  J.  Q.  Adams's 
"  Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  327,  447,  478.  "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp. 
I95-J>7. 

5  "  National  Intelligencer  "  of  January  10  and  19,  1822.  Adams's  "Me- 
moirs," Vol.  V,  pp.  466,  468,  470.  Of  the  total  of  169  members  of  the  South 
Carolina  Legislature  no  attended  the  caucus,  and  of  these  57  favored  a 
nomination  at  that  time,  while  53  were  opposed.  There  is  a  hint  that  the  53 
were  to  some  extent  guided  by  friendship  for  Calhoun,  but  Lowndes,  whose 
health  was  then  already  breaking,  received  a  unanimous  vote.  J.  Q. 
Adams  writes  later  (ibid.,  VI,  pp.  242,  243)  that  S.  D.  Ingham  and  Thomas 
J.  Rogers  (a  manufacturer)  were  the  leaders  in  this  movement  for  Cal- 
houn, but  it  is  not  entirely  clear  whether  the  calling  delegation  was  entirely 
composed  of  Pennsylvanians  or  was  partly  from  the  North  and  partly 
from  the  South. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  291 

number  of  years  he  was,  beyond  doubt,  most  eager  for  the 
office. 

In  regard  to  these  movements,  Calhoun  wrote  Maxcy  on 
December  31,  i82i,6  that  the  nomination  of  Lowndes  was 
"  a  very  rash  and  foolish  movement.  ...  I  was  informed  by 
my  friends,"  he  continues,  "  of  this  state  of  the  public  opin- 
ion [the  unpopularity  of  Adams  and  Crawford]  and  pro- 
posed to  be  brought  forward  by  them.  I,  however,  adhered 
still  to  the  ground,  which  I  at  first  assumed,  not  thinking  that 
there  was  sufficient  evidence  of  such  a  state  of  facts  existing, 
which,  taking  place,  I  have  always  thought  that  it  would  be 
my  duty  to  run  all  hazards." 

This  decision  of  his  and  the  unpopularity  of  the  candidates 
led  to  the  movement  in  South  Carolina.  He  adds  that  there 
was  no  disagreement  between  himself  and  Lowndes,  and  that 
he  had  told  the  latter  at  an  earlier  date  that  he  would  not  re- 
sist the  opinion  of  those  who  thought  he  ought  to  be  brought 
forward,  and  Lowndes  had  agreed  to  the  sufficiency  of  his 
reasons.  Lowndes  had  called  on  Calhoun,  after  hearing  of 
his  own  nomination  in  South  Carolina,  and  Calhoun  asked 
whether  he  ought  to  retire,  but  Lowndes  answered  No.  They 
took  measures,  also,  to  prevent  any  clash  of  their  friends.  In 
regard  to  the  opinion  Adams  might  possibly  hold  of  his  enter- 
ing the  field,  Calhoun  further  wrote  Maxcy  that  the  nomina- 
tion of  Lowndes  proves,  that  I  remained  on  the  ground,  which 
I  had  at  first  assumed,  as  long  as  I  could  with  safety  to  my- 
self, and  must  satisfy  Mr.  Adams  and  his  friends,  that  I  was 
compelled  by  the  course  of  events  to  assume  a  more  distinct 
position." 

None  the  less,  from  about  this  time  the  friendship  between 
Calhoun  and  Adams  waned,  and  the  latter  became  bitterly 
jealous  of  his  new  rival.  Their  relations  were  for  a  time  en- 
tirely broken  and  were  never  again  in  reality  resumed.  Craw- 
ford's friendship  with  Calhoun  had  already  become  a  sacri- 
fice, evidently,  in  the  main,  to  the  like  clash  of  ambitions. 
The  two  men,  though  from  different  States,  at  home  lived  not 
far  from  each  other  and  are  said  to  have  been  long  on  friendly 

6  Maxcy-Markoe  Collection  in  Library  of  Congress. 


292  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

terms ;  but  they  began  to  break  apart  at  an  early  day  in  Cal- 
hoim's  public  career.  It  is  quite  likely  that,  as  has  been  sug- 
gested, Calhoun's  advocacy  of  Monroe  in  1816  was  the  start- 
ing point  of  their  separation.  The  elderly  Georgian,  who  ap- 
preciated to  the  full  his  own  abilities,  and  probably  felt  that 
long  services  entitled  him  to  the  nomination,  was  a  man  of 
vindictive  nature  and  may  well  have  thought  the  action  of  the 
young  South  Carolinian  little  short  of  a  crime. 

An  early  instance  of  his  opposition  to  the  Secretary  of  War 
is  to  be  found  in  the  already  mentioned  effort  made  in  1821 
to  break  down  that  system  of  fortifications  which  had  been 
decided  upon  in  1815-16  and  was  a  favorite  interest  of  Cal- 
houn.  This  was  accomplished  by  defeating,  under  the  plea 
of  economy,  the  appropriations  for  certain  works  in  connec- 
tion with  the  defences  of  New  Orleans,  and  is  said  to  have 
been  aimed  at  Monroe  as  well  as  at  Calhoun.  The  President 
evidently  felt  it  strongly,  and  on  March  26,  1822,  wrote  a 
special  message  to  Congress  upon  the  subject,  in  which  he  in- 
veighed against  its  impolicy  in  language  plain  enough  despite 
its  restraint. 

The  rivalry  between  the  Secretaries  of  War  and  of  the 
Treasury  grew  steadily  more  bitter  and  became  soon  a  posi- 
tive enmity.  Though  of  course  more  or  less  veiled  while 
they  were  serving  together  in  Monroe's  cabinet,  yet  even  then 
there  was  a  period  when  they  "  had  no  friendly  communica- 
tion with  each  other,"  and  John  Quincy  Adams  recorded  in 
1822  that  the  cabinet  discussions  between  them  "  had  become 
painful  by  the  tone  in  which  they  express  their  opinions  — 
being  that  of  suppressed  hatred  and  subdued  anger."  7  All 
this  rivalry  and  constant  friction  led  Calhoun  to  entertain  a 
very  poor  opinion  of  Crawford,  while  John  Quincy  Adams 
with  characteristic  bitterness  found  at  about  this  time  the  hid- 
den hand  of  Crawford  in  almost  every  instance  in  which  he 
did  not  have  his  own  way.  It  was  not  very  long  before  the 
diarist  began  to  devote  a  large  share  of  the  same  secret  venom 
to  abuse  of  Calhoun,  but  such  distorted  fancies  of  contempo- 

7  "Writings  of  James  Monroe,"  Vol.  VII,  p.  229;  and  see  "  Autobios-. 
raphy,"  p.  28.  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  243-46. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  293 

raries  are  always  to  be  accepted  with  the  greatest  hesitation.8 
y^Far  different  was  the  case  with  the  friendship  between 
Calhoun  and  Lowndes,  which  seems  never  to  have  been  even 
shaken,  despite  the  fact  that  they  were  rivals  in  the  same 
State.  — •  Immediately  upon  being  put  in  nomination,  it  is  said 
that  Calhoun  in  turn  called  on  Lowndes  to  tell  him  that  the 
nomination  was"  made  "  without  his  procurement  or  solicita- 
tion," and  that  he  hoped  the  fact  of  their  being  opposing  can- 
didates would  make  no  difference  in  their  private  relations. 
Lowndes  assured  him  that  it  would  not  and  added  that  he, 
too,  had  been  nominated  without  his  knowledge.  Lowndes 
even  wrote  James  Hamilton  soon,  expressing  the  wish  that, 
if  enough  States  should  support  Calhoun,  South  Carolina 
would  transfer  her  vote  to  him,  and  the  political  wiseacres  of 
the  time  are  said  to  have  been  greatly  surprised  to  see  these 
two  rivals  still  continue,  as  in  the  past,  their  daily  walk  to- 
gether to  the  Capitol,  without  the  slightest  difference  having 
been  brought  about  by  the  new  circumstances.  Lowndes's 
health  was  at  this  time  already  failing  and  he  died  in  Octo- 
ber, I822.9 

The  campaign  of  1824-25  began  very  early  in  its  course 
to  be  conducted  with  a  great  deal  of  abuse,  and  Calhoun  com- 
plained bitterly  in  some  letters  in  the  spring  of  1822  of  the 
City  Gazette  of  Washington  and  its  constant  attacks  on  him. 
This  paper  was  Crawford's  organ,  and  in  the  summer  of  that 
year  Calhoun  and  his  friends  seem  to  have  concluded  that 
they  also  must  have  a  paper  in  their  interest.  Accordingly, 
the  Washington  Republican  was  started  in  August  with  Col. 
T.  L.  McKenney  as  its  editor.  McKenney  had  been  a  clerk 
in  the  War  Office  under  Calhoun  but  did  not  hold  the  position 
during  his  editorship.  Adams  writes  in  1824  that  he  was  an 
unnaturalized  Englishman,  but  this  point  cannot  be  solved 
to-day  nor  is  it  of  any  real  importance.10 

8Schouler's  "United  States,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  261.  "Writings  of  James 
Monroe,"  Vol.  VII,  p.  82 ;  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  57- 

9  Jenkins's    "  Life    of    Calhoun,"    154,    155.      Mrs.    Ravenel's    "  William 
Lowndes,"  226-230. 

10  Gaillard  Hunt's  "  Calhoun,"  p.  46 ;  John  Quincy  Adams's  "  Memoirs," 
Vol.  VI,  p.  291 ;  and  see  pp.  47,  48,  56,  66,  69,  et  seq.;  Schouler's  "  United 
States,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  265. 


294  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Calhoun  was  active  in  starting  the  paper,  had  at  least  a  hand 
in  the  prospectus  and  in  obtaining  subscribers,  and  writes,  too, 
of  furnishing  the  editor  with  some  reflections  which  McKen- 
ney  was  to  bring  out  in  his  own  words.11  It  is  not  unlikely, 
too,  that  he  supplied  to  some  extent  the  financial  means  to  start 
and  carry  it  on.  He  complains  of  heavy  expenses  at  this 
time  and  was  apparently  borrowing  money  in  December  of 
i823,12  and  the  paper  came  to  an  end  and  sold  its  plant  to 
the  National  Journal  in  a  824,  at  about  the  date  when  Calhoun 
abandoned  his  presidential  aspirations.  Adams  writes  that  it 
had  not  been  a  financial  success.13 

The  Washington  Republican, —  such  was  its  title, —  was  an 
evening  paper,  at  first  published  twice  a  week,  later  three  times, 
and  finally  daily.  It  bore  for  a  motto  the  words  "  Virtus 
Liberia^  et  natale  Solum"  and  was  bright,  well- written  and 
above  the  standard  of  the  day.  The  City  Gazette,  Crawford's 
organ,  was  quite  unable  to  cope  with  it.  Of  course  it  was 
decidedly  partisan  and  indulged  in  the  newspaper  wit  then 
usual.  Thus  about  the  time  of  the  Congressional  Caucus  of 
1824,  in  which  Van  Buren  was  actively  concerned,  its  columns 
contained  various  fictitious  notices,  one  of  which  was  signed: 
"  By  order  of  the  General  Caucus.  Martin  Van  Bring-up, 
Corporal  on  the  Look-out,"  and  another  "  King  Caucus,"  and 
countersigned  "  M.  Van-der-Buck-Tail,  Prime  Minister  and 
Grand  Sachem.  Month  of  Wind." 

The  serious  purpose  of  the  paper,  however,  was  of  course 
to  advocate  Calhoun  for  the  presidency  and  to  write  down 
Crawford  in  particular.  Mrs.  Smith  even  wrote  that  McKen- 
ney  was  making  every  effort  to  drive  the  latter  from  the  cab- 
inet, and  he  was  forever  under  fire  in  its  columns,  but  I  know 
of  only  one  instance  in  which  his  personal  honesty  was  at- 

11  Letter  of  August  2,  1822,  to  Virgil  Maxcy,  in  the  Maxcy-Markoe 
papers  in  the  Library  of  Congress. 

12  "Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp.  206,  213,  216.    The  same  complaint 
of  heavy  expenses  occurs  in  Calhoun's  letters  of  other  dates.    See  infra, 
P.  345- 

"  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  291,  396,  400.    The  first  number  of  the  "  Re- 
publican    was  issued  on  August  7,  1822,  and  the  last,  July  10,  1824.    The 
National  Journal,"  which  succeeded  it,  was  edited  by  Peter  Force   and 
was  in  the  interest  of  Adams  and  his  friends. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  295 

tacked.  This  was  during  the  year  1823  and  in  a  series  of 
very  scurrilous  articles  signed  "  A.  B.,"  in  reality  written  by 
Ninian  Edwards.  They  charged  Crawford  with  corrupt  deal- 
ings with  the  banks  and  other  disgraceful  transactions;  but 
the  charges  became  later  a  subject  of  Congressional  investiga- 
tion, and  Crawford  was  exonerated  and  Edwards  totally  dis- 
credited. 

This  "A.  B.  plot,"  as  it  was  called  at  the  time,  was  in 
Benton's  opinion  14  detrimental  to  Calhoun  in  the  end,  but 
there  is  nothing,  so  far  as  I  know,  to  show  that  he  had  any 
hand  in  the  appearance  of  the  articles.  It  may  be  worth  while 
to  add  that  McKenney  was  in  turn  charged  not  much  later 
with  being  a  defaulter.15 

Calhoun  was  very  popular  in  Pennsylvania,  and  long  re- 
mained full  of  hopes  of  success  in  that  State.  The  Franklin 
Gazette  of  Philadelphia, —  of  which  he  wrote  on  March  18, 
i822,10  that  it  "comes  out  with  great  tone"  for  him, —  was 
a  supporter,  and  there  is  evidence  that  during  that  year  there 
was  some  thought  among  his  friends  of  securing  a  formal 
nomination,  probably  by  the  Democratic  members  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania Legislature.  This  led,  however,  to  violent  attacks  by 
the  friends  of  Clay  and  Crawford,  and  the  plan  was  abandoned 
for  the  time.17 

The  next  year,  again,  at  the  meeting  of  the  State  Conven- 
tion at  Harrisburg  on  March  4,  Calhoun's  friends  evidently 
planned  to  secure  his  endorsement,  if  possible,  but  the  design 
had  again  to  be  given  up.  The  general  question  was  for  a  time 
before  the  body,  when  a  delegate  from  Westmoreland  County, 
in  obedience  to  express  instructions,  offered  a  resolution 

14  "  Thirty  Years'  View,"  I,  pp.  34-36.    The  file  of  the  "  Republican  "  in 
the  Library  of  Congress  is  very  imperfect,  and  I  have  seen  but  one  of 
the   "  A.B."   letters.    They  are,  however,  of  very  little  importance,  and 
the  one  number  sufficiently  indicates  their  character. 

15  The  "  Republican  "  for  1824,  passim. 

16  Letter  to  Virgil  Maxcy,  in  Maxcy-Markoe  papers  in  Library  of  Con- 
gress. 

17  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  42,  43.    See  also  the  denial  in  "  The 
National  Intelligencer  "  of  February  7,  1822,  of  the  report  that  the  Pennsyl- 
vania delegation  in  Congress  had  sent  two  of  their  members  to  Harrisburg  ; 
and  the  same  paper  a  week  or  two  earlier  denies  that  the  Pennsylvania 
delegation  had  held  a  caucus  in  Washington. 


296  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

recommending  Jackson  for  President,  but  the  members  were 
not  inclined  to  run  the  risk  of  coming  out  so  early  and  in  favor 
of  a  man  perhaps  not  destined  to  succeed  in  the  end.  One  can 
almost  feel  the  fright  and  skurrying  to  and  fro  of  the  pol- 
iticians, when  we  read  in  the  Franklin  Gazette  18  that  "  several 
motions  were  made  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table,  and  to 
proceed  to  its  consideration,  but  almost  by  common  consent  the 
convention  declined  to  have  anything  to  do  with  it.  They 
deemed  it  inexpedient  to  perform  any  formal  act  upon  a  sub- 
ject of  so  much  delicacy  and  importance  so  early." 

In  regard  to  this  result,  Calhoun  wrote  19  on  March  12  and 
13  to  Virgil  Maxcy,  his  friend  and  lieutenant  in  Maryland: 

I  have  just  heard  from  Mr.  Dallas.  The  question  of  taking 
up  the  nomination  of  President  was  tried  on  presenting  the  name 
of  General  Jackson,  by  the  delegates  from  Westmoreland,  who 
had  been  instructed  to  that  effect.  My  friends  were  prepared 
to  bring  my  name  forward  if  the  question  should  be  entertained ; 
but  there  appeared  such  aversion  to  the  subject  both  on  account 
of  the  want  of  authority  in  the  members  and  the  fear  that  it 
might  distract  their  state  election,  that  they  thought  it  prudent 
not  to  bring  my  name  forward  at  all,  so  that  even  the  appearance 
of  an  abortive  attempt  has  been  avoided. 

It  was  fully  ascertained  that  I  had  2/3  of  the  convention  against 
all  of  the  other  candidates  combined ;  and  my  friends  in  the  state 
were  never  in  better  spirits. 

Arrangements  must  be  made  to  bring  out  the  next  Legislature 
at  the  commencement  of  the  session;  and  in  the  meantime  as 
much  spirit  given  both  to  correspondence  and  papers  as  may  be 
practicable. 

It  is  certain  that  the  election  is  with  Pennsylvania  and  New 
York.  If  they  unite  they  choose  their  man ;  if  they  divide  their 
respective  candidates  must  become  the  rival  candidates.  This 
simple  view  combined  with  my  known  strength  in  Pennsylvania 
places  me  on  high  ground.  The  idea  must  be  scouted  that  I 
have  withdrawn,  or  that  there  is  the  least  foundation  for  its 
assertion. 

...  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  it  appears  to  me  my  prospect 
was  never  better.  I  stand  on  the  great  republican  cause  free 

18  Number  for  March  8,  1823. 

19  Letters  in  Maxcy-Markoe  collection  in  Library  of  Congress. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN)  297 

alike  from  the  charge  of  federalism  or  radicalism.  If  you  can 
obtain  any  support  for  the  paper  here  [doubtless,  the  Republican] 
it  would  be  desirable.  A  thousand  or  even  five  hundred  dollars 
would  be  at  present  important  to  the  editors.  Mr.  Cox  the 
Mayor  of  Georgetown  would  indorse  for  the  editor.  He  has 
very  extensive  possessions  but  not  a  command  of  cash  at  pres- 
ent. Without  some  support  I  fear  the  editor  may  encounter  in- 
surmountable difficulties. 

These  letters  show  how  sanguine  Calhoun  was  in  i823,20 
and  his  published  correspondence  shows  the  same  thing  in 

1822.  He  wrote  his  brother-in-law  on  March  19  of  the  lat- 
ter year  that  his  friends,  thought  his  "  political  prospect  good, 
in  fact  better  than  any  other  who  is  spoken  of.     I  do  not 
think  Mr.  L.  [Lowndes]  is  much  spoken  of.     He  has  few  op- 
ponents but  still  fewer  ardent  friends.     My  own  opinion  is 
that  the  contest  will  be  between  Adams,  Crawford  and  my- 
self."    Crawford,  on  the  other  hand,  thought21  in  February, 

1823,  that  Calhoun  was  "  hors  du  combat,  having  consigned 
his  forces,  that  were  disposable,  to  an  Eastern  general." 

This  was,  however,  merely  the  view  of  a  rival,  and  it  has 
plainly  appeared  that  Calhoun  was  full  of  hope  at  this  very 
time,  as  well  as  both  earlier  and  later,  and  only  six  months 
after  Crawford  wrote  as  above,  Calhoun  told  Maxcy 22 
"  Crawford  is  certainly  done.  A  warm  and  intimate  friend  of 
his  from  Georgia,  who  is  well  acquainted  with  the  state, 
acknowledges  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  can  take  the  state 

20  On  March  27,  1823,  he  wrote  Micah  Sterling,  his  former  classmate  at 
Yale,  under  the  same  inspiration.     Sterling  was  one  of  his  aids  in  New 
York,  and  Calhoun  wished  him  to  write  and  write  often  for  the  press,  and 
outlined  his  own  claims  as  follows :  "  My  past  services,  my  identity  with 
the  late  war  and  the  administration,  my  uniform  Republican  course,  my 
habits  of  industry  and  business,  the  distinctness  of  my  political  principles, 
and  the  openness  and  candour  which  even  my  enemies  concede  to  me,  all 
furnish   topics   for   arguments   to  sustain  the  cause."    A  later   letter  of 
May  28,  1823,  to  Sterling  admits  that  Adams  had  undoubtedly  gained  and 
was  then  very  strong,  but  adds  "  I  still  think,  however,  though  not  now 
as  strong  as  he  is,  that  I  have  some  striking  advantages  over  him,  which 
will  manifest  themselves  strongly  before  the  end  of  the  contest "  (Letters 
in  the  collection  of  John  Gribbel,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia).     See  also  Adams's 
"  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  7. 

21  Letter  of  February  16  to  Tait,  printed  in  Shipp's  "  Crawford,"  p.  236. 

22  Letter  of  August  13,  1823,  in  the  Maxcy-Markoe  papers  in  the  Library 
of  Congress. 


298  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

from  me,  and  thinks  the  election  between  the  Clark  and  Craw- 
ford candidates  doubtful.  His  neighbors  have  abandoned 
him.  It  is  time  to  make  a  move  on  our  own  ground,  and  to 
separate  our  cause  from  all  others,  particularly  Adams." 
Here  we  have  another  mistaken  judgment,  but  in  November, 
when  the  Crawford  candidate  had  been  elected  in  Georgia, 
Calhoun  consoled  himself  with  the  solace  that  his  friends 
looked  upon  the  circumstances  attending  the  election  as  likely 
"  to  strengthen  my  prospect  rather  than  to  weaken  it."  23 

It  has  been  seen  that  Calhoun  looked  upon  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania  as  the  most  important  states,  and,  though  he  had 
generally  little  hope  from  the  former,  yet  he  evidently  watched 
the  ground  carefully  and  corresponded  upon  the  matter  with 
Monroe's  son-in-law,  Gouverneur,  during  1823,  and  both 
McDuffie  and  another  of  his  lieutenants  made  visits  there  in 
his  interest.  In  his  letters  Van  Buren  "  and  the  rest  of  the 
intriguers  "  were  handled  without  gloves ;  and  in  November, 
when  Calhoun's  friends,  "  the  People's  party,"  had  a  decided 
success  in  New  York  City,  Maxcy  wrote :  "  the  impression  is 
rapidly  increasing  that  he  will  get  this  powerful  State,  with- 
out whose  votes  no  candidate  can  be  chosen  by  the  Electors." 
Calhoun,  too,  then  thought  that  Van  Buren,  Crawford  and 
the  intended  Congressional  Caucus  in  the  interest  of  the  lat- 
ter were  crushed,  but  in  the  end,  as  is  well  known,  Van  Buren 
triumphed  absolutely  and  New  York  became  one  of  the  strong- 
est supporters  of  Crawford.24 

Movements  in  Calhoun's  favor  were  made  in  various  States 
and  on  November  29,  1823,  after  the  death  of  Lowndes,  he 
was  nominated  by  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  by  an  al- 
most unanimous  vote.  At  about  the  same  time,  he  advised  de- 
lay in  a  proposed  movement  at  Annapolis,  writing  that  "  cer- 
tainty is  more  important  than  promptitude."  25  As  time  wore 
on,  the  contest  grew  steadily  more  bitter  and  Jackson  kept  for- 

23  Letter  of  November  25,  1823,  to  Maxcy  in  the  Maxcy-Markoe  paper  s 
in  Library  of  Congress. 

2*  Letters  of  Calhoun  to  Sam'l.  L.  Gouverneur,  printed  in  "  Bulletin  of 
the  New  York  Public  Library,"  Vol.  Ill  (1899),  pp.  324-327.  Letter  of 
Virgil  Maxcy  to  R.  S.  Garnett  in  "American  Historical  Review,"  Vol. 
XII  (No.  3:  April,  1907),  pp.  600,  601. 

25  "  Correspondence,"  p.  216.    Niles's  "  Register,"  of  December  20,  1823. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  299 

ever  gaining  in  popularity  so  that  there  were  soon  no  less 
than  five  leading  candidates, —  Adams,  Crawford,  Clay,  Cal- 
houn,  and  Jackson.  No  wonder  that  all  sorts  of  rumors  flew 
about,  some  absolutely  false,  others  probably  inspired  by  leak- 
age from  plans  more  or  less  under  discussion  as  possible 
courses  of  action  in  some  one  of  the  camps. 

Thus,  as  early  as  January,  1824,  it  was  whispered  abroad 
that  there  was  to  be  a  coalition  between  Calhoun  and  Adams, 
but  Calhoun  wrote  on  January  30  that  this  was  "  one  of  the 
devices  of  the  enemy.  It  is  a  report  wholly  destitute  of  fact 
to  support  it ;  and  is  not  believed  by  those  who  circulate  it.  I 
stand  wholly  on  my  own  basis,  and  shall  continue  so  to  stand. 
The  prospect  is  good.  The  election  will  be  left  as  it  ought 
to  be  to  the  people.  They  alone  have  the  right.  Our  friends 
oppose  a  caucus  not  through  a  fear  of  weakness  in  Congress, 
but  through  principle.  A  Congressional  caucus  will  certainly 
fail." 

The  method  of  nominating  Presidential  candidates  was 
then  far  from  fixed.  There  was  no  National  Nominating 
Convention  held  until  1831—32,  and  candidates  were  suggested 
in  various  ways  by  unauthorized  but  usually  important  bodies, 
while  the  seal  of  "  regularity  "  had  been  given  in  the  past 
by  the  Congressional  Caucus.  At  this  time,  however,  that 
old  piece  of  political  machinery  was  visibly  breaking  down 
and  had  for  some  years  been  looked  upon  with  growing  dis- 
favor. Calhoun  had  attended  the  caucus  of  1812  as  a  sup- 
porter of  Madison,  and  again  in  1816,  though  he  is  said  to 
have  been  opposed  to  holding  one  and  to  have  long  stood  out 
against  it,  yet  in  the  end  he  attended,  in  order  to  avoid  a  split 
in  the  party.26  Crawford  relied  upon  securing  its  endorse- 
ment that  year,  while  Monroe's  friends  had  opposed  calling 
the  body  together.  When  it  met,  the  vote  was  in  favor  of 
Monroe  by  a  small  majority.  Calhoun  was  strongly  in  favor 
of  the  latter,  and  as  early  as  January  4,  1815,  had  expressed 
in  a  letter  to  a  relative  his  opinion  that  Monroe  "  will  be  the 
coming  man." 

26 "  Autobiography,"  pp.  28-29,  J-  E.  D.  Shipp's  "Life  and  Times  of 
William  H.  Crawford,"  pp.  173-75.  Jenkins's  "Life,"  p.  155. 


300  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

In  1820  a  congressional  caucus  was  called,  but  was  a  fail- 
ure. Only  very  few  attended,  and  they  decided  against  mak- 
ing any  nomination.  There  was,  indeed,  no  real  opposition 
that  year,  and  Monroe  was  reflected  by  a  practically  unani- 
mous vote.  But  in  1824  the  question  became  once  more  vital. 
Crawford  was  again  in  favor  of  a  caucus,  but  several  Legisla- 
tures declared  against  it,  and  the  friends  of  Adams,  Calhoun, 
Clay,  and  Jackson  united  in  opposition  to  calling  one.27  In 
the  different  States  various  political  meetings  declared  them- 
selves one  way  or  the  other  upon  this  subject,  and  some  pro- 
posals were  made  that  seem  to  have  been  highly  important  in 
the  growth  of  our  present  system  of  making  nominations. 

In  Pennsylvania,  as  early  as  January  10,  1824,  the  Demo- 
cratic members  of  the  Legislature  met  at  the  State  Capitol  and 
recommended  Democrats  throughout  the  State  to  choose  a 
number  of  delegates  equal  to  the  number  of  their  senators  and 
representatives,  to  meet  at  Harrisburg  on  the  4th  of  March 
next  and  "  form  an  Electoral  Ticket  to  be  supported  by  the 
Democratic  party,  at  the  ensuing  election  for  Electors  of 
President  and  Vice-President." 28  Nor  was  this  all.  Two 
days  earlier,  a  meeting  of  Democrats  in  Lancaster  County  in 
the  same  State,  after  resolving  in  favor  of  a  Congressional 
Caucus,  had  gone  on  to  express  their  opinion  that  a  Conven- 
tion of  delegates  from  all  the  States  of  the  Union  would  be 
the  best  method  of  selecting  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency 
but  for  the  fact  that  our  country  was  so  immense  as  to  render 
this  method  impossible.29  Here  was  an  idea  of  great  moment, 

27  J.  Q.  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  V,  p.  60;  Vol.  VI,  pp.  191,  231,  232, 
240,  241 ;  Parton's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  25-29. 

"  The  National   Intelligencer "  of  January   15,   1824. 

29  Ibid.,  of  January  17,  1824.  An  unnamed  Democratic  member  of  Con- 
gress wrote  from  Washington  on  January  6  to  the  "  Franklin  Gazette," 
sending  the  anti-caucus  circular  signed  by  14  Democratic  members  from 
Pennsylvania  (soon  to  be  mentioned),  and  then  saying:  "I  sincerely  hope 
that  Pennsylvania  will  take  the  lead  in  recommending  a  national  con- 
vention. It  is  the  only  plan  calculated  to  conciliate  and  harmonize  the 
Republican  party  throughout  the  Union."  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXV, 
p.  306.  About  the  same  time,  too,  some  body  of  delegates  in  the  North- 
ern Liberties  (now  a  part  of  Philadelphia)  resolved  that  "  a  national  con- 
vention composed  of  delegates  from  each  congressional  district  presents 
at  once  the  most  practicable  and  the  most  republican  mode  of  effecting 
a  nomination  for  the  presidency."  "  Franklin  Gazette  "  of  January  13,  1824. 
Three  years  later  (January  13,  1827),  Van  Buren  wrote  from  Washington 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  301 

which  was  destined  to  be  realized  in  a  few  years,  but  which 
the  lack  of  transportation  facilities  then  rendered  impractica- 
ble. 

The  other  and  more  modest  idea  of  a  State  Convention 
for  nominating  purposes30  was  also  at  that  date  far  from 
fully  developed  but  took  strongly,  and  it  will  be  found  that 
the  body  met  at  the  time  suggested.  In  the  steps  leading  up 
to  it,  moreover,  events  occurred  which  are  of  great  moment 
to  us  here  and  which  exercised  a  vital  influence  on  the  hopes 
of  all  the  presidential  candidates. 

Calhoun's  popularity  continued  long  in  Pennsylvania,  and 
I  think  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  down  to  a  late  date  he  was 
generally  regarded  as  the  man  most  likely  to  receive  the  sup- 
port of  that  leading  State.  But,  as  time  wore  on,  Jackson's 
strength  grew  steadily.  He  had  the  backing  of  several  most 
astute  political  leaders  throughout  the  country,  and  they  suc- 
ceeded wonderfully  in  pressing  him  forward  as  the  candidate 
of  the  common  people,  while  the  glamor  of  his  dazzling  mili- 
tary achievement  served  to  attract  the  support  of  thousands. 
Indorsements  of  him  began  to  be  made  at  Democratic  meetings 
here  and  there  throughout  the  State,  and  the  influence  of  these 
was  probably  not  much  diminished  by  the  occasional  com- 
plaint of  the  Franklin  Gazette  early  in  1824  that  these  meet- 
ings were  noisy  and  "  irregular." 

Doubtless  they  were  noisy  and  often  unorthodox,  but  they 

to  Thomas  Ritchie,  calling  attention  to  an  article  in  the  "Argus"  on  a 
national  convention  and  then  going  on  to  say  that  the  measure  will  soon 
be  brought  forward  here,  "It  was  first  suggested  to  me  by  the  Vice- 
President ;  he  and  Mr.  Ingham  of  Pennsylvania  are  the  only  persons  with 
whom  I  have  as  yet  conversed."  Letter  in  Van  Buren  Papers  in  Library 
of  Congress.  On  the  general  subject,  see  "The  First  National  Nominating 
Convention,"  by  S.  E.  Morrison  in  "American  Historical  Review,"  Vol. 
XVII,  (July,  1912),  pp.  744-63,  which  cites  "The  First  National  Nominat- 
ing Convention,"  by  John  S.  Murdock  in  ibid.,  Vol.  I,  p.  680,  and  Lue- 
techer's  "  Political  Machinery,"  Chaps.  Ill  and  IV. 

30  Such  Conventions  had  been  held  a  number  of  years  earlier.  Some 
account  of  their  development  is  to  be  found  in  "  The  Development  of  the 
Nominating  Convention  in  Rhode  Island,"  by  Neil  Andrews;  Reprinted 
from  the  Publications  of  the  Rhode  Island  Historical  Society ;  Providence, 
Rhode  Island,  1894.  "  Nominating  Conventions  in  Pennsylvania,"  by 
Joseph  S.  Walton.  "American  Historical  Review,"  Vol.  II  (January,  1897), 
pp.  262  et  seq.,  "  Pennsylvania  Politics  early  in  the  [Nineteenth]  Century," 
by  William  M.  Meigs,  "  Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,'' 
Vol.  XVII,  pp.  485  et  seq. 


ii 

302  LIFE  OF  JOHN  Q  CALHOUN 

were  evidently  the  expression  of  the  uprising  of  the  American 
Democracy.  )QVs  the  Jacksofi  tide  kept  thus  forever  rising 
and  spreading,  it  was,  no  doubt,  a  cause  of  great  anxiety  to 
Calhoun  and  his  friends,  despite  the  fact  that  down  to  a  late 
date  the  Republican  continued  to  insist  that  Calhoun's  chances 
had  never  been  better/  His  organ  could  of  course  say  nothing 
else,  but  there  was  the  sound  of  fate  in  those  small  but  ever- 
growing voices  in  favor  of  Jackson. 

The  Tatter's  friends  grew  bolder,  too,  as  time  wore  on.  At 
a  meeting  held  in  Carlisle,  apparently  in  January,  1824,  and 
called  by  Calhoun's  friends,  resolutions  in  his  favor  were 
offered,  but  it  is  said  that  some  member  then  moved  to  amend 
by  striking  out  Calhoun's  name  and  inserting  that  of  Jackson, 
and  that  this  was  at  once  carried  by  acclamation.31 

Whether  this  incident  actually  occurred  or  not,  the  follow- 
ing is  certain.  At  some  convention  in  Nether  Providence, 
Delaware  Co.,  on  February  7,  a  committee  was  appointed  to 
prepare  resolutions,  and  they  reported  one  resolution  to  ap- 
prove of  the  proposed  Convention  at  Harrisburg  on  March  4, 
and  another  to  instruct  the  delegates  to  support  the  candidates 
nominated  by  the  Congressional  Caucus,  if  one  should  be 
held,  and  if  not,  then  such  men  as  would  be  most  likely  to 
represent  the  wishes  of  Democrats.  One  can  see  here  the 
fine  hand  of  some  non-committal  politician,  but  rebellion  was 
afoot.  The  first  resolution  was  soon  unanimously  passed,  but 
Geo.  G.  Leiper  offered  as  a  substitute  for  the  second  a  reso- 
lution in  words  approving  of  General  Jackson  for  President, 
and  this  was  adopted  by  the  meeting.32 

Meanwhile,  still  other  events  were  taking  place,  which  had 
in  the  end  a  great  influence  in  crushing  Calhoun's  hopes  for 

f l  Parton's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  28,  29.  I  have  been  unable  to  find 
this  instance  in  the  files  of  the  various  newspapers  I  have  gone  over, 
but  they  are  almost  always  imperfect,  and  the  absence  of  an  item  of  news 
from  the  papers  of  that  day  is  little  evidence  that  the  incident  in  question 
did  not  occur.  Perhaps,  on  the  other  hand,  Parton  wrote  on  the  authority 
of  some  verbal  informant,  and  this  informant's  memory  retained  an  in- 
accurate impression  of  the  Delaware  County  instance  mentioned  in  the 
text. 

32 "Franklin  Gazette"  of  February  11,  1824. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  303 

that  year.  The  question  of  caucus  or  no  caucus  was  actively 
under  discussion.  On  January  6,  1824,  fourteen  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania delegation  in  Congress  published 33  a  notice  against  a 
caucus  and  intimated  that  they  would  not  attend,  if  one  were 
held,  and  a  month  later  a  card,  signed  by  twenty- four  members 
from  numerous  States,  appeared  in  the  Intelligencer,  in  which 
they  announced  that  they  had  been  asked  by  many  of  their 
colleagues  to  ascertain  the  number  of  members  who  disap- 
proved of  holding  a  caucus  and  had  found  that,  of  the  total 
number  of  261,  there  were  181  "  who  deem  it  inexpedient, 
under  existing  circumstances,  to  meet  in  caucus  "  for  that 
purpose.34 

This  ought  to  have  been  a  hard  blow  to  the  advocates  of  a 
caucus;  but  the  very  same  day  (February  7th)  another  notice 
was  published  in  the  Intelligencer, —  signed  by  eleven  mem- 
bers from  as  many  different  States,  announcing  that  a  caucus 
would  be  held  on  Saturday,  February  I4th.  When  this  meet- 
ing came  together  at  the  time  appointed,  it  was  at  once  ap- 
parent that  Crawford's  friends  controlled  it.  Every  effort 
had  been  made  to  secure  a  large  attendance.  Macon  was 
pressed  in  vain  to  come,  and  they  tried  even  to  "  draw  out " 
an  expression  of  opinion  from  the  aged  Jefferson.  A  week 
before  the  meeting  it  was  hoped  that  as  many  as  100  would 
attend,35  but  there  were  actually  only  66  members  present 
in  person  and  two  by  proxy. 

On  the  only  ballot  Crawford  received  64  votes  as  against  2 
for  Adams,  one  for  Jackson  and  one  for  Macon.  Gallatin 
was  selected  for  Vice-President,  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that 
Van  Buren  attended,  possibly  guided  to  some  extent  by  the 
politician's  fondness  for  that  form  of  orthodoxy  which  he 
calls  regularity.  He  had  not  yet  come  to  be  a  supporter  of 

33  Adams  ("Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  242,  243)  says  that  this  movement 
originated  with  Ingham  and  Rogers,  who  had  been  leaders  in  bringing 
Calhoun  forward.     See  also  ibid.,  p.  235. 

34  "The  National  Intelligencer"  of  January  i5th  and  of  February  7th, 
loth,  and  I2th,  1824.    The  "  U.  S.  Gazette  "  of  February  pth  reprints  from 
the  "  Intelligencer  "  of  February  6th  both  the  notice  for  and  that  against 
the  caucus. 

S3  Adams's  "  Gallatin,"  pp.  593-96- 


3o4  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Jackson.  There  was  some  hissing  in  the  galleries  on  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  vote  for  President.36 

Looking  back  to-day  not  much  less  than  a  hundred  years, 
it  seems  that  such  an  evidently  rump  convention  ought  to 
have  carried  little  weight,37  especially  as  fully  one-half  of 
the  vote  for  Crawford  was  said  to  come  from  the  two  States 
of  New  York  and  Virginia.  But  the  outlook  was  evidently 
thought  at  first  blush  to  be  very  serious,  and  the  movement  had, 
at  least,  the  advantage  of  regularity  and  might  perhaps  have 
resulted  in  concentrating  popular  support  upon  its  nominee. 
It  will  shortly  be  shown,  too,  from  a  letter  of  Calhoun  that 
the  "  Caucussers  "  were  thought  to  have  a  scheme  for  the  im- 
mediate endorsement  of  Crawford  in  two  leading  States  and 
hoped  thus  to  sweep  the  party  on  to  his  support. 

The  troubles  in  the  Republican  camp  were  all  owing  to 
a  surplus  of  candidates  and  the  resulting  division.  Concen- 
tration was  imperative,  and  among  those  opposed  to  Craw- 
ford Jackson  had  gained  so  much  support  in  Pennsylvania 
that  there  could  by  that  time  be  little  doubt  that  he  was  the 
most  popular  man  in  the  State.  Accordingly  when,  only  four 
days  after  the  Crawford  Caucus,  a  meeting  was  held  in  Phila- 
delphia on  February  18  to  revise  the  proceedings  of  the  ward 
meetings,  which  had  appointed  delegates  to  the  coming  State 
Convention,  events  occurred  of  the  utmost  importance  to  us 
here.  George  M.  Dallas,  then  a  young  man  with  a  long  career 
ahead  of  him,  attended  the  meeting  and  was  known  to  have 
been  a  leading  supporter  of  Calhoun  for  the  Presidency,  but 
he  introduced  resolutions  outspoken  in  favor  of  Jackson. 

Dallas  was  at  the  time  a  candidate  for  the  mission  to  Mexico, 
and  an  unsuccessful  effort  had  been  recently  made  by  Ingham 
to  induce  the  Secretary  of  State  to  withdraw  his  opposition 
to  the  appointment.38  He  was  also  said  to  be  seeking  an  ap- 

38  "The  National  Intelligencer"  of  February  17,  1824.  "The  Washing- 
ton Republican"  of  February  I4th,  as  quoted  in  the  "  U.  S.  Gazette"  of 
February  18,  1824,  has  it  that  there  was  universal  hissing,  and  one  other 
newspaper,  which  I  have  seen  but  failed  to  note,  admitted  the  occurrence 
of  slight  hissing. 

37  A  writer  of  the  time  tells  us  that  the  nomination  soon  injured  Craw- 
ford more  than  it  helped  him :  Cobb's  "  Leisure  Labors,"  pp.  207,  208. 

88 John  Quincy  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  243-46. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  305 

pointment  in  the  State,  and  of  course  his  action  in  the  con- 
vention was  by  some  put  down  to  interested  motives ;  but  there 
is  no  reason  to  seek  so  far.  The  very  recent  caucus  and  the 
supposed  plans  of  its  supporters  had  evidently  alarmed  him 
and  his  friends,  and  it  will  shortly  be  seen  that  he  had  already 
informed  Calhoun  that  the  latter's  cause  was  lost  in  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

The  resolutions  offered  by  Dallas  called  upon  Democrats 
to  sacrifice  their  personal  predilections  and  to  "  unite  in  one 
harmonious  and  simultaneous  movement "  for  the  election  of 
Jackson,  and  further  recited  that  "  it  is  expedient,  in  order 
signally  to  defeat  a  project  so  subversive  of  fundamental  prin- 
ciples [as  the  caucus  nomination  of  Crawford]  to  concentrate 
the  energy  of  all  sound  Democrats  in  favor  of  a  single  illus- 
trious individual."  In  his  speech  offering  the  resolutions, 
Dallas  spoke  of  the  caucus  as  formidable  and  then  said: 

It  concentrated  for  its  favorite  candidate  the  force  of  a  des- 
perate and  heedless  faction;  and  it  could  only  be  encountered 
effectually  by  a  similar  concentration  of  its  opponents.  We  must 
cease  to  contend  for  persons;  principles  which  lie  at  the  root 
of  our  politics  were  involved;  and  we  were  bound  to  make  com- 
mon cause  against  the  caucus,  in  the  mode  most  likely  to  achieve 
a  signal  triumph.  .  .  . 

Another  paper  of  the  day  reported  him  as  follows : 

The  subject  of  deliberation  was  one  of  too  general  impor- 
tance and  of  too  much  national  interest  to  justify  any  indul- 
gence of  personal  partiality  or  dislike.  .  .  .  He  was  about 
tendering  to  what  he  believed  was  the  good  of  the  country  and 
the  preservation  of  the  Republican  party,  a  sacrifice  of  individual 
predilection,  the  magnitude  of  which  his  own  particular  friends, 
and  perhaps  his  fellow  citizens  at  large,  could  easily  appreciate. 
A  crisis  had,  however,  arrived,  which  appealed  forcibly  to  the 
patriotic  feelings  of  every  man  attached  to  the  institutions  of 
the  country,  to  their  safety  from  foreign  aggression  and  from 
domestic  usurpation.  .  .  .  He  adverted  to  the  caucus  lately  held 
at  Washington.  ...  It  was  the  caucus  of  a  miserable  and  in- 
fatuated minority.  .  .  .  One  entire  half  of  the  vote  given  to  the 


306  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

nominated  candidate  —  could  it  be  credited !  — came  from  two 
States  only,  New  York  and  Virginia. 

Mr.  Dallas  said  that  his  partiality  for  one  distinguished  states- 
man as  a  presidential  candidate  had  always  been  avowed,  and 
was  known  to  his  fellow  citizens.  His  respect  and  attachment 
for  that  individual,  his  admiration  of  his  principles,  his  perfect 
confidence  in  his  virtues  and  abilities,  and  his  deep  sense  of  his 
services  to  this  country,  were  undiminished  and  could  never 
change.  But  predilections  must  be  sacrificed:  the  cause  of  the 
nation,  the  cause  of  the  democratic  party,  were,  in  his  opinion, 
at  stake:  we  must  forego  subordinate  differences  of  opinion  and 
rally  energetically  on  him  who,  while  he  possessed  every  quali- 
fication that  can  be  desired  in  an  American  pilot,  would  lead  us 
by  his  merited  popularity,  through  the  storm.39 

In  one  sense  Dallas's  step  was  a  fateful  one  for  Calhoun, 
but  in  reality  it  only  recognized  that  which  the  growth  of 
popular  opinion  had  already  brought  about  in  Pennsylvania. 
Niles's  "  Register,"  in  reporting  the  matter,  wrote  that  it  was 
understood  that  Dallas's  action  "  expressed  the  sentiment  of 
the  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  Pennsylvania  generally,"  and 
the  same  result  would  inevitably  have  occurred  in  a  few  days, 
in  any  event,  at  the  Harrisburg  Convention.  The  Republi- 
can in  Washington  had  a  difficult  task  to  explain  its  position, 
but  met  the  disaster  with  dignity.  In  the  leading  editorial, 
February  23,  1824,  it  wrote: 

We  publish,  this  day,  the  Proceedings  in  the  Town-Meeting 
at  Philadelphia,  with  the  observation  made  by  Mr.  Dallas  on 
the  occasion;  from  which  it  may  be  inferred,  that  it  is  no  longer 
doubtful  that  the  whole  political  and  moral  influence  of  Pennsyl- 
vania will  be  concentrated  on  General  Jackson.  The  movement, 
we  believe,  was  wholly  unpremeditated  and  spontaneous.  Infor- 
mation had  just  been  received  of  the  proceedings  of  the  partial 
caucus;  and  it  being  evident  that  the  object  of  the  caucus  was  to 
force  Mr.  Crawford  upon  Pennsylvania,  immediate  concentra- 
tion on  Mr.  Calhoun  or  General  Jackson,  who  alone  divided  the 
State,  became  necessary,  in  order  to  defeat  the  success  of  the 

39  "The  National  Intelligencer"  of  February  24th,  1824.  "The  Demo- 
cratic Press "  of  February  21,  quoting  from  the  "  Franklin  Gazette." 
Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXV,  p.  408. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN 

caucus  scheme.  It  was  found  that  this  concentration  could  be 
most  readily  made  upon  General  Jackson,  and  the  friends  of  Mr. 
Calhoun,  with  that  disinterestedness  which  has  characterized  them 
through  every  stage  of  the  canvass  of  the  Presidential  question, 
determined  to  sacrifice  personal  predilection  to  the  good  of  the 
cause.  The  concentration  of  the  Republican  forces  accordingly 
took  place  on  General  Jackson,  which  places  him  out  of  the 
reach  of  competition  in  that  great  state,  and  leaves  not  a  shadow 
of  hope  that  the  caucus  nomination  here  can  have  the  slightest 
influence  in  Pennsylvania.  This  movement  destroys  the  last 
hope  of  the  caucussers.  Their  scheme,  undoubtedly,  was  to  ob- 
tain, without  delay,  the  confirmation  of  the  caucus  nomination, 
by  tHe  Legislatures  of  Virginia  and  New  York,  which  had 
previously  pledged  themselves  to  support  the  movement  at  Wash- 
ington ;  and  taking  advantage  of  the  distraction  in  Pennsylvania, 
between  the  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  General  Jackson,  they 
calculated  to  operate  on  the  Convention  at  Harrisburg,  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Crawford,  by  means  of  the  nomination  thus  confirmel 
at  Richmond  and  Albany.  The  scheme  was  ingenious,  and  might, 
by  possibility,  have  succeeded,  had  not  the  friends  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn made  the  noble  and  disinterested  sacrifice  which  they 
have  made.  At  this  result  we  heartily  rejoice,  as  every  well 
wisher  of  the  country  must;  while  it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  a 
deep  regret  that  it  has  been  found  thus  necessary,  for  the  com- 
mon good,  to  diminish  the  prospects  of  that  candidate  (whose 
prospects  were  otherwise  so  fair)  with  whose  elevation  we  have 
ever  considered  the  best  interests  of  the  country  to  be  con- 
nected. .  .  . 

Better  evidence  of  the  sentiments  of  Calhoun  himself  upon 
this  shipwreck  of  his  hopes  is  to  be  found  in  a  letter 40  of  Feb- 
ruary 27,  written  from  Washington  to  his  friend  Maxcy,  in 
which  he  says: 

I  have  just  read  your  letter  enclosing  the  Penna  circular.  The 
movement  at  Philadelphia  was  as  unexpected  to  me  as  it  could 
have  been  to  any  of  my  friends.41  It  has  produced  here  the  deep- 
est excitement.  Mr.  Dallas  had  informed  me  about  a  week  be- 

*°  Maxcy-Markoe  Papers,  in  Library  of  Congress. 

41 J.  R.  Poinsett,  then  a  close  political  friend  of  Calhoun,  wrote  on  Feb- 
ruary 26  to  Joseph  Hopkinson  (  ?)  to  precisely  the  same  effect.  Hopkin- 
son  Collection  of  letters  in  possession  of  Edward  Hopkinson,  Esq.,  of 
Philadelphia. 


3o8  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

fore  that  he  thought  the  cause  was  lost  in  Penna  and  that  we 
should  have  to  yield  there,  at  the  Harrisburg  convention.  Tho' 
prepared  for  a  defeat  [at]  Harrisburg,  no  movement  in  advance 
was  anticipated.  What  took  place  was  unpremeditated  and  under 
a  sudden  impulse  received  from  the  caucus  nomination  here,  and 
the  loss  of  Berks  which  decided  the  contest  in  favor  of  Genl. 
Jackson  in  Penna.  I  have  no  doubt  the  motives  were  pure ;  and 
tho'  ill  timed  as  it  regards  Dallas  and  our  cause,  yet  not  un- 
favorable to  the  great  point  of  defeating  the  Radicals. 

Our  friends  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  we  ought  to  hold 
to  our  position,  and  wait  events.  It  is  thought  to  be  the  best  in 
every  point  of  view  whether  it  regards  the  country,  or  our- 
selves. Nor  will  there  be  much  difficulty.  South  Carolina  and 
Jersey  can  easily  be  retained  as  they  are.  In  North  Carolina,  the 
friends  of  Jackson  will  not  start  another  ticket,  with  the  under- 
standing that  the  one  formed  will  support  him,  should  I  have  no 
prospect.  In  Penna  a  ticket  will  be  formed  favorable  to  me  as 
a  second  choice,  and  the  same  course  will  be  pursued  in  Louisiana, 
Alabama,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  and  Tennessee.  In  Maryland  it 
is  highly  desirable  that  my  friends  should  run  in  as  many  dis- 
tricts as  possible,  taking  Jackson  if  necessary  as  a  second  choice, 
or  taking  position  simply  against  the  caucus  with  the  determina- 
tion to  support  the  strongest. 

Jackson's  friends  indicate  a  disposition  to  add  my  name  to  his 
ticket  in  Penna  as  V.  P.  We  have  determined  in  relation  to  it 
to  leave  events  to  take  their  own  course,  that  is  to  leave  the  de- 
termination to  his  friends.  Standing  as  I  do  before  the  American 
people,  I  can  look  to  no  other  position  than  that  which  I  now 
occupy. 

Had  Penna  decided  favourably,  the  prospect  would  have  been 
most  fair.  Taking  the  U.  S.  together  I  never  had  a  fairer  pros- 
pect than  on  the  day  we  lost  the  State. 

Two  weeks  later,  on  March  4,  the  State  Nominating  Con- 
vention met  at  Harrisburg  and  was  largely  attended.  There 
were  present  125  delegates,  representing  all  the  counties  but 
four.  No  effort  in  Calhoun's  favor  seems  to  have  been  made, 
and  doubtless  this  and  the  Convention's  action  as  to  him  were 
in  pursuance  of  the  understanding  between  the  Jackson  and 
Calhoun  forces  described  in  Calhoun's  letter.  A  motion  to  in- 
dorse Crawford  was  overwhelmingly  defeated  by  a  vote  of 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  309 

only  2  Yeas  to  123  Nays,  and  then  a  resolution  in  favor  of    <x 
Jackson  was  carried  by  124  to  i.VCalhoun  was  nominaled4 
for  Vice-President,  receiving  87  votes,  to  To  TdfTTlay,  10  for 
Gallatin,  and  17  scattering.42     Before  very  long,  too,  Calhoun      \ 
was  taken  up  by  the  friends  of  Adams  as  their  candidate  for 
Vice-President,  and  thus  he  was  rapidly  being  forced  toward 
second  position.  ***** 

His  "  Autobiography  "  tells  us  that  his  name  "  was  finally 
withdrawn  in  compliance  with  his  wishes,"  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  question  the  truth  of  this  statement,43  but  it  is  im- 
possible to  ascertain  the  date  at  which  the  withdrawal  was 
made.  Probably  the  process  was  a  gradual  one  and  forced 
upon  him  by  the  logic  of  events.  It  has  been  seen  that  Dal- 
las's  action  at  the  meeting  in  February  was  unexpected  to 
Calhoun,  and  that  he  proposed  still  to  keep  himself  in  the 
field  after  that  time.  It  was  indeed  hardly  in  human  nature 
for  him  to  do  otherwise,  fired  as  he  was  by  an  honorable 
ambition  to  be  President,  even  though  he  was  but  forty-two 
and  could  therefore  well  afford  to  wait, —  so  far  as  mere 
years  were  concerned.  There  is,  moreover,  evidence  that  his 
hopes  continued  for  a  number  of  months  yet.  John  Quincy 
Adams,  for  instance,  though  he  thought  in  April,  1824,  that 
Calhoun  was  at  heart  for  him  and  was  only  aiming  to  secure 
the  Vice-Presidency  for  himself,  was  apparently  shaken  in 
this  belief  as  late  as  the  ensuing  August,  and  even  then  was 
in  doubt  as  to  Calhoun's  plans.44 

The  campaign  of  1824-25  was  a  bitter  struggle,  but  there 
is  no  need  here  of  going  much  further  into  its  details.  After 
Calhoun  was  taken  up  by  the  friends  of  both  Adams  and 

42  "United  States  Gazette"  of  March  8  and  10,  1824;  "The  National 
Intelligencer  "  of  March  10,  1824. 

43  Calhoun   said   in   a   speech   at  a   dinner  given  him   at  Abbeville   on 
May  27,   1825 :   "  From  first  to  last,  one  leading  principle  governed  me, 
that  the  voice  of  the  people  should  prevail.  ...  I  did  not  hesitate,  by 
withdrawing,  to  contract  the  sphere  of  election,  and  thereby  to  endeavor 
as  far  as  in  me  lay,  to  terminate  the  election  by  the  people,  without  its 
being  referred  to  the  house  of  representatives."     Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol. 
XXVIII,  pp.  256-67.     Mr.  Jervey  has  also  been  unable  to  determine  at 
just  what  time  Calhoun  withdrew,  and  thinks  his  popularity  in  South  Caro- 
lina was  much  diminished  at  about  this  time,  and  that  he  was  the  object 
of  many  attacks.     "  Life  of  Hayne,"  pp.  173-77. 

44  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  290,  292,  407. 


3io  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Jackson  for  the  Vice-Presidency  and  withdrew  from  the  strug- 
gle for  the  highest  office,  the  result  as  to  him  became  a  fore- 
gone conclusion,  and  he  was  triumphantly  chosen  by  182 
electoral  votes  out  of  a  total  of  261.  There  was,  however, 
no  election  of  a  President  on  the  popular  vote,  and  the  House 
of  Representatives  then  chose  John  Quincy  Adams. 

Some  glimpses  of  the  struggle  thus  terminated  reach  us 
from  Mrs.  Smith,  who  has  already  been  quoted.  She  knew 
in  1823  that  Calhoun  and  Adams  were  not  such  friends  as 
they  had  been,  and  in  January,  1825,  when  the  choice  of 
President  was  about  to  come  on  in  the  House,  she  wrote  her 
sister : 

You  must  know  society  is  now  divided  into  separate  battalions 
as  it  were.  Mrs.  Adams  collected  a  large  party  and  went  one 
night  [to  the  theatre],  Mrs.  Calhoun  another,  so  it  was  thought 
by  our  friends  that  Mrs.  Crawford  should  go,  too,  to  show  our 
strength.  .  .  .  The  fate  of  the  election  is  as  uncertain  as  ever.45 

Mrs.  Smith,  despite  her  friendship  for  the  Calhouns,  was 
a  partisan  of  Crawford  for  the  Presidency,  but  it  is  not  ap- 
parent why  Calhoun  should  then  take  an  active  part.  He  was 
not  a  candidate  for  the  office  and  had  already  been  elected  to 
the  Vice-Presidency  by  the  popular  vote. 

On  March  4,  1825,  Calhoun  took  the  oath  of  office  as  Vice- 
President  and  was  widely  looked  upon  as  a  leading  candi- 
date for  the  Presidency  four  years  thence.  But  when  that 
period  had  gone  by,  as  will  be  shown  later,  he  once  more  found 
it  necessary  to  stand  aside.  Jackson's  strength  was  far  too 
great  to  be  stemmed^Calhoun  was  then  taken  up  as  Vice- 
President  by  Jackson  s  friends  and  was  once  mere  elected 
(in  1829)  to  that  office.  Again  this  time  he  seemed  to  have 
every  prospect  of  succeeding  to  the  Presidency,  but  the  allur- 
ing prize  was  destined  never  to  be  his.  «•* 

These  events  are  a  few  years  ahead  of  the  time  with  which 
we  are  now  mainly  concerned,  but  are  introduced  here  because 
of  their  bearing  on  Calhoun's  years  as  Vice-President.  In 
the  same  connection,  it  will  be  well  to  quote  from  one  more 

45  Mrs.  Smith's  "  First  Forty  Years  "  etc.,  pp.  163,  170,  171. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  311 

letter  of  Mrs.  Smith,  giving  some  view  of  his  idea  of  po- 
litical struggles.  On  January  30,  1829,  after  his  second  elec- 
tion as  Vice-President,  and  after  Jackson  had  triumphed  over 
Adams,  she  wrote  to  her  son  : 

I  ...  told  you  we  were  going  to  have  a  small  party,  a  small, 
but  very  select  and  agreeable  one  it  was.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Calhoun, 
she  as  friendly  and  social,  he  as  charming  and  interesting  as  ever. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Calhoun  [spoke  with  me]  about  the  late  election  and 
the  characters  of  some  of  the  leaders  on  both  sides  ..."  What 
a  pity  it  is,"  observed  Mr.  Calhoun  to  me,  "  that  all  the  ladies 
cannot  carry  it  off  (their  defeat)  as  charmingly  as  Mrs.  Porter 
[Gen.  Porter's  wife],  but  some  I  hear  take  it  much  to  heart.  .  .  . 
After  all,"  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  "  these  things  are,  as  it  were,  the 
mere  charity  of  war  and  triumph  of  defeat,  change  sides  and 
every  one  takes  his  turn,  so  that  one  ought  not  to  feel  great  eleva- 
tion or  depression,  but  in  either  case  take  the  result  with  moder- 
ation, but  above  all,  as  far  as  possible  to  avoid  mingling  personal 
with  political  feelings.  There  is  nothing  from  which  I  have 
really  suffered  in  the  late  conflict  of  parties,  but  the  division  it 
has  created  between  me  and  personal  friends;  as  for  the  enmity 
and  abuse  of  political  opponents,  that  is  nothing  —  wounds  which 
leave  no  scar.46 


period  of  nearly  eight  years  during  which  Calhoun 
held  the  office  of  Vice-President  was  of  vital  importance  to 
him  and  marks,  indeed,  the  turning  point  of  his  career.  It 
will  be  found  that  these  years  contained  many  a  disappoint- 
ment, some  situations  of  immense  difficulty  for  a  statesman, 
and  embraced  a  time  when  his  mind  must  have  been  dis- 
traught by  doubts.  They  ushered  in,  moreover,  the  long  term 
during  which  his  nation-wide  popularity  was  largely  broken  , 
and  he  came  to  represent  only  a  section  of  the  country.  *\  / 

It  seems  to  have  been  generally  agreed  that  he  made  an 
admirable  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate/  Regular  in  at- 
tendance, he  himself  wrote47  that  during  the  long  and  la- 
borious session  of  1825-26  he  was  not  absent  from  his  post 
for  a  moment,  "  and  often  remained  in  the  chair,  without 

46  Mrs.  Smith's  "  First  Forty  Years  "  etc.,  pp.  268-270. 
v  Calhoun  as  "  Onslow,"  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  347- 


3i2  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

leaving  it,  from  eight  to  twelve  hours."  Dignified  in  manner, 
probably  feeling  the  lofty  character  of  the  duties  belonging  to 
the  body,  he  imparted  some  of  this  feeling  to  members,  and 
they  in  general  responded  to  his  lead.  But  it  will  shortly  be 
shown  that  there  was  one  member  who  formed  a  conspicuous 
exception  to  this  rule. 

Calhoun  introduced  the  custom  of  addressing  the  members 
of  the  body  as  "  Senators  "  instead  of  "  Gentlemen/'  as  had 
been  the  practice  theretofore,  and  this  has  prevailed  ever  since. 
He  always  made  a  point  of  being  at  his  post  of  duty,  con- 
sidering that  the  office  he  held,  as  well  as  all  others,  called 
for  diligent  service  on  the  part  of  the  incumbent,  and  he  only 
absented  himself  near  the  end  of  the  session,  so  as  to  permit 
the  election  of  a  President  pro  tempore.  Far  different  had 
been  the  course  of  his  predecessors,  who  had  let  the  office 
become  very  much  of  a  sinecure.48 

There  have,  perhaps,  been  few  Presidencies  during  which 
the  mere  game  of  politics  was  played  to  so  large  an  extent 
as  during  that  of  John  Quincy  Adams.  And  this  was  probably 
inevitable  from  the  surrounding  circumstances;  It  was  a 
period  of  transition  and  of  purely  personal  politics,  and  it  is 
curious  to  think  to-day  that  John  Quincy  Adams  owed  his 
election  to  the  party  of  Jefferson.  A  man  further  removed 
than  Adams  from  the  views  of  the  founder  of  the  Republicans 
could  hardly  be  found ;  and  he  was  scarcely  in  office  before  he 
broke  away  entirely  from  their  principles.  Among  many 
strongly  Federalistic  policies  advocated  by  him,  the  Panama 
Mission  was  a  favorite  one;  and  it  was  urged,  moreover, 
coupled  with  extravagant  claims  of  executive  power  in  the 
matter.  Certainly  far  from  Jeffersonian  in  its  nature,  it  came 
soon,  too,  to  touch  on  the  tender  subject  of  slavery.  The 
South  was  already  much  alarmed  on  the  subject  of  the  blacks 
in  general  and  wanted  little  to  do  with  South  American 
countries  which  admitted  them  to  an  equality.  The  proposed 
mission  came  hence  to  be  the  subject  upon  which  lengthy  dis- 
cussions were  had  of  slavery  in  all  its  aspects. 

48Josiah  Quincy's  "Figures  of  the  Past,"  pp.  262,  263;  and  see  also 
(e.g.)  W.  H.  Sparks's  "Memoirs  of  Fifty  Years,"  p.  55. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  313 

At  this  time,  the  South  had  a  doughty  champion  in  John 
Randolph  of  Roanoke.  Long  in  the  political  field,  with  as 
bitter  a  tongue  as  is  often  vouchsafed  to  the  sons  of  men, 
foreseeing  more  clearly  than  almost  any  one  of  his  contem- 
poraries the  threatening  ruin  of  the  then  Southern  civiliza- 
tion, and  utterly  uncompromising,  Randolph  was  by  this  time 
a  man  past  fifty  years,  and  long  habits  of  intemperance  had 
had  their  usual  effect  on  a  mind  always  erratic  but  which 
even  yet  had  flashes  of  brilliancy. 

He  was  sent  to  the  Senate  from  Virginia  in  1825  and  soon 
became  one  of  the  very  first  leaders  of  the  opposition.  It  was 
said  of  him,  with  probable  truth,  that  he  did  more  than  any 
other  single  man  to  break  down  the  administration.49  In 
the  course  of  his  many  abusive  harangues,  which  were  dis- 
jointed and  disconnected  to  a  degree, —  and  often  openly 
accentuated  by  liberal  potations  of  spirits  while  on  the  floor, — 
he  undoubtedly  went  very  far  beyond  any  proper  rules  of 
decorum  in  debate,  while  the  sting  of  his  words  was  often 
burning  and  must  at  times  have  caused  positive  pain  to  those 
at  whom  they  were  aimed.  Possibly,  too,  this  was  increased 
by  the  fact  that  the  half-insane  mind  of  this  diseased  man,  in 
pouring  out  his  diatribes,  would  still  not  infrequently  clothe 
them  in  language  which  genius  alone  can  lend,  as  well  as 
flash  out  the  soundest  views  of  some  phase  of  public  affairs. 

One  of  the  worst  of  these  attacks  of  Randolph  was  con- 
tained in  his  speech 50  of  March  30,  1826,  on  Executive  Pow- 
ers. It  grew  out  of  Adams's  course  as  to  the  proposed  Pan- 
ama Mission,  and  was  fairly  ribald  as  to  the  President  and  his 
Secretary  of  State.  The  latter  was  compared  to  "  Black 
George,"  while  the  former  became  "  Blifil,"  the  Puritanical 
hypocrite  and  swindler;  and  their  alleged  corrupt  bargain  was 
depicted  in  language  clear  enough,  despite  the  fact  that  no 
human  being  could  possibly  unravel  the  wordy  tangle  and  dis- 
cover a  thread  to  the  speech.  Clay,  as  is  well  known,  resorted 
to  a  challenge,  and  there  was  held  ere  long  between  him  and 

49  Vance  in  the  House  of  Representatives  on  January  29,  1828.    Adams's 
"  Randolph,"  p.  290. 
60  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  II,  Part  I,  1825-26,  pp.  389^-404;  398,  401. 


3i4  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Randolph  what  Benton  calls  the  last  "high-toned  duel"  he 
ever  witnessed.  With  this,  however,  we  are  not  here  con- 
cerned. 

This  speech  and  others  of  a  like  nature  made  by  Randolph 
during  his  two  years  in  the  Senate  constitute,  of  course,  the 
instances  above  referred  to  in  which  the  dignity  of  the  body 
was  not  maintained  during  Calhoun's  Vice-Presidency;  and 
the  chair  soon  came  to  be  violently  abused  in  many  quarters 
for  not  calling  the  unruly  member  to  order.  The  question  was 
evidently  widely  discussed  among  Senators  as  well  as  outside 
the  body  and,  when  amendments  of  the  rules  were  shortly 
passed  to  rescind  those  sections  that  left  to  the  presiding  officer 
the  appointment  of  committees  and  the  supervision  of  the 
Journal,  Calhoun  took  advantage, —  on  April  15, —  of  the  op- 
portunity to  explain  his  position  in  regard  to  the  matter  in 
general. 

After  quoting  the  words  of  the  6th  and  7th  Rules,  he  said : 

The  chair  .  .  .  has  bestowed  its  most  deliberate  and  anxious 
attention,  by  day  and  by  night,  on  the  question  of  the  extent 
of  its  powers,  under  a  correct  construction  of  these  rules,  and 
has  settled  in  the  conviction,  that  the  right  to  call  to  order,  on 
questions  touching  the  latitude  or  freedom  of  debate,  belongs  ex- 
clusively to  the  members  of  this  body,  and  not  to  the  chair.  The 
power  of  the  presiding  officer,  on  these  great  points,  is  an  ap- 
pellate power  only;  and  consequently,  the  duties  of  the  chair 
commence  when  a  Senator  is  called  to  order  by  a  Senator.51  »  ^v 

The  subject  was  soon  bruited  in  the  newspapers,  and  some 
writer  under  the  name  of  "  A  Western  Senator  "  defended 
the  Vice-President.  Then  ere  long  a  series  of  articles  over 
the  signature  of  "  Patrick  Henry "  began  to  appear  in  the 

51  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  II,  Part  I,  1825-26,  pp.  572-573.  The 
6th  and  7th  Rules,  there  quoted,  read:  "When  a  member  shall  be  called 
to  order,  he  shall  sit  down,  until  the  President  shall  have  determined 
whether  he  is  in  order  or  not;  and  every  question  of  order  shall  be  de- 
cided by  the  President,  without  debate;  but  if  there  be  a  doubt  in  his 
mind,  he  may  call  for  the  sense  of  the  Senate. 

"  If  the  member  be  called  to  order,  for  words  spoken,  the  exceptionable 
words  shall  be  immediately  taken  down,  in  writing,  that  the  President 
may  be  better  enabled  to  judge  of  the  matter." 

The  rules  contained  no  other  provision  upon  the  subject. 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  315 

National  Journal  of  Washington,52  most  strongly  taking  the 
opposite  side.  The  writer  of  the  articles  wielded  an  able  and 
a  most  caustic  pen,  and  it  was  apparently  generally  assumed, 
then  as  well  as  later,  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
was  the  real  author.  Calhoun  was  openly  accused  of  pervert- 
ing the  Rules  and  neglecting  to  do  his  plain  duty  in  the  mat- 
ter, in  order  to  attain  the  ends  of  his  own  ambition,  and 
vituperation  was  poured  upon  him  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  series. 

"  Patrick  Henry's  "  first  letter  was  answered  by  "  Onslow  " 
in  two  numbers  of  The  National  Intelligencer,™  and  here  again 
it  seems  to  have  been  generally  assumed  that  the  author  was  a 
person  in  high  standing, —  none  less  than  the  alleged  culprit 
himself,  Calhoun.  "  Onslow  "  was  quite  as  full  of  vitupera- 
tion as  "  Patrick  Henry,"  and  it  was  certainly  a  unique  sight 
thus  to  see  these  two  high  officers  charged  in  turn  with  perver- 
sions and  falsify  ings,  and  the  motives  and  conduct  of  each 

52  The  five  letters  of  "  Patrick  Henry "  are  to  be  found  in  the  issues 
of  May  i,  June  7,  and  August  4,  5,  and  8,  1826.    They  were  also  later 
printed  in  pamphlet  form  and  make  a  pamphlet  of  over  fifty  pages.    There 
is,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  no  (direct  evidence  whatsoever  that  John  Quincy 
Adams  was  the  author  of  "  Patrick  Henry,"  and  Mr.  Worthington  C.  Ford, 
who  is  editjng  "Adams's  Works,"  has  kindly  written  me  in  advance  that 
he  thinks  it  "safe  to  reject  the  whole  story"  of  Adams's  share  in  the 
publication.     But  I  cannot  escape  the  conclusion  that  Adams  had  a  large 
hand  in   the  matter.    "  Onslow "  publicly  stated  and  assumed  that   fact 
("Calhoun's  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  322).     Calhoun's  "Autobiography"  of 
1843   (p.  31)   again  does  the  same  thing,  speaking  of  the  author  as  "a 
writer   of  great  power    (supposed  to  be  the   President  himself)";   and 
Cralle,  in  editing  Calhoun's  works,  writes  ("  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  322)  as 
if  such  were  the  ascertained  and  known  fact.     See  also  Jenkins's  "  Life," 
p.  159.     So  far  as  I  know,  Adams  did  not  at  any  time  either  deny  the 
charge  or  refer  to  it, —  either  publicly  or  in  his  "  Diary."    Perhaps  internal 
evidence  is  not  altogether  wanting.    The  great  length   (over  fifty  pages) 
and  labored  argument  are  very  like  Adams,  and  the  allegation  that  the 
duty  of  the  Vice-President  to  call  to  order  rested  on  "deeper  and  holier 
foundations  "  than  any  Rule  of  the  Senate,  is  just  such  as  he  would  have 
made.     Some  persons  are,  I  think,  of  opinion  that  the  articles  were  actually 
composed  by  Philip  Richard  Fendall   (then  a  Clerk  in  the  Office  of  the 
Secretary  of  State),  and  the  publication  supervised  by  Adams;  and  per- 
haps this  is  as  near  the  truth  as  it  is  possible  to-day  to  get. 

53  There  were  three  numbers  of  "  Onslow."    The  first  was  originally  sent 
to   the   "  National   Journal,"  but  was   refused  publication.    It  was  then 
sent  to  the  "  National   Intelligencer "  and  printed  in  the  issue  of   May 
20.    The  two  remaining  numbers, —  the  more  important  ones, —  are  con- 
tained   in   the    "  Intelligencer "    of    June   27   and   29   and   in   "  Calhoun's 
Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  322-348.    The  first  number  is  not  printed  in  the 
"  Works." 


316  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

attacked  in  about  as  high  a  style  of  invective  as  is  often  used 
among  the  cultivated;  while  both  authors  assumed, —  and  the 
public,  at  least,  thought  it  knew, —  that  the  President  and 
Vice-President  were  the  actual  authors.  "  Patrick  Henry's  " 
later  numbers  were  even  formally  addressed  to  "  Hon.  John 
C.  Calhoun,  Vice-President,"  etc. 

The  main  contention  of  "  Patrick  Henry  "  was  that,  under 
the  constitutional  provision  that  made  the  Vice-President  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  Senate,  it  was  ex  vi  termini  his  duty 
to  preserve  decorum  and  of  his  own  motion  to  call  a  member 
to  order  for  words  improperly  spoken  in  debate.  Calhoun 
answered  that  this  view  neglected  another  provision  to  the 
effect  that  "  each  House  may  determine  the  Rules  of  its  pro- 
ceedings, punish  its  members  for  disorderly  behaviour,  and, 
with  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds,  expel  a  member."  With 
this  provision  conferring  an  express  authority  on  the  Senate 
to  make  its  own  rules,  it  is  impossible,  he  argued,  to  sup- 
pose that  the  power  of  calling  to  order  was  intended  to  be 
vested  in  the  Vice-President.  The  Senate  had,  moreover, 
enacted  rules  of  order  and  yet  had  not  made  any  such  provision, 
while  the  Rules  of  the  House  were  express  that  the  Speaker 
should  call  to  order. 

In  his  later  letters,  "  Patrick  Henry "  maintained  that  the 
6th  and  7th  Rules  were  plainly  intended  to  have  application 
only  when  a  member  should  call  to  order,  and  purposely  left 
that  duty  with  the  presiding  officer  in  all  cases  where  members 
failed  to  do  so.  This  obligation  of  the  Vice-President,  he 
wrote,  "  rested  on  deeper  and  holier  foundations  "  than  any 
rule  of  the  Senate  and  could  not  be  taken  away  from  him  by 
the  body.  He  also  cited  Jefferson's  Manual,  some  language 
of  which  tended  to  bear  out  his  general  view;  and  he  con- 
tended that  Calhoun  had  in  fact  called  another  member  to 
order.  The  argument  was  undoubtedly  labored,  and  ran  into 
great  length. 

Calhoun's  whole  discussion  of  the  matter  was  contained  in 
three  papers  covering  twenty-six  smaller  pages,  and  he  never 
even  answered  the  last  four  letters  of  his  opponent,  despite 
their  effort  to  draw  him  on.  His  main  argument  rested 


ADAMS  AND  CALHOUN  317 

on  the  express  power  conferred  by  the  Constitution  upon  the 
Senate  to  make  its  own  rules,  but  he  also  maintained  that  it 
could  not  be  supposed  that  the  Fathers  had  designed  to  place 
one  man  over  the  Senate,  armed  with  such  a  weapon,  and  then, 
more  suo,  dilated  on  the  awful  tyranny  that  might  result  in 
some  instances  from  admitting  the  theory  of  "  Patrick  Henry." 
The  one-man  poiver  figured  largely  throughout  the  discussion, 
and  Calhoun  was  careful  to  limit  what  he  said  to  the  specific 
point  at  issue, —  of  the  power  to  call  to  order  upon  ques- 
tions touching  the  latitude  or  freedom  of  debate. 

The  marked  difference  between  the  powers  conferred  by  the 
rules  of  the  two  houses  on  the  Speaker  and  Vice- President 
respectively,  was  emphasized  by  "  Onslow,"  and  the  reason 
alleged  to  be  that  in  the  one  case  the  officer  is  absolutely  re- 
sponsible for  his  conduct  to  the  body  under  him,  while  in  the 
other  he  is  not.  The  close  analogy  on  this  point  between 
the  Commons  and  the  House  of  Lords  was  of  course  also 
mentioned.  The  alleged  instance  on  his  own  part  of  calling 
to  order  he  distinguished,  and  showed  further  that  the  mem- 
ber in  question  agreed  with  his  view  and  did  not  think  himself 
unfairly  dealt  with.  Jefferson's  authority  against  him  could 
not  be  entirely  cleared  away. 

It  seems  to  the  present  writer  that  Calhoun  had  certainly 
the  better  of  the  discussion  and  that  •"  Patrick  Henry"  was 
rash  in  assuming  such  large  results  as  flowing  from  a  bald 
provision  that  a  certain  officer  should  be  the  presiding  officer 
but  he  was  doubtless  stung  to  madness  by  the  outrageous  lan- 
guage of  Randolph  and  the  evident  crumbling  to  pieces  of  / 
his  Administration.  Calhoun  wrote  later  that  his  two  papers 
"  so  completely  demolished  the  argument  of  '  Patrick  Henry ' 
as  to  turn  the  tide  in  his  favor."  And  such  seems  to  have 
been  the  opinion  at  the  time.  In  1828,  too,  while  he  was 
still  Vice-President,  a  new  rule  was  passed  by  the  Senate,  ex- 
pressly conferring  on  the  presiding  officer  the  power  to  call 
to  order;  and  here  again  Calhoun  finds  his  justification,  add- 
ing that  the  new  rule  was  enacted  "  with  an  almost  unanimous 
approval  of  his  decision."  54 

""Autobiography,"    pp.    31,    32,    Jenkins's    "Life,"    p.    159.    O'Neall's 
"  Bench  and  Bar  of  South  Carolina,"  Vol.  II,  p.  300. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  GROWTH    OF   SECTIONAL   HOSTILITY 

Calhoun's  Change  of  View  and  Causes  Leading  Thereto  — 
Champion  of  State  Rights  —  The  Missouri  Struggle  —  Early 
Abolition  Proposals  —  The  Tariff. 

DURING  the  years  we  have  been  recently  considering,  Cal- 

houn  had  gone  through  that  great  change  of  opinion  as  to 

public  affairs  which  has  been  several  times  referred  to  in  these 

pages.  VHis  early  views  have  been  already  seen,  and  he  evi- 

7  dently  aahered  in  the  main  to  these,  until  about  the  time  when 

his  Vice- Presidency  began  in  1825;  but  the  close  of  his  first 

/  ^    term  in  that  office,  in  1829,  found  him  holding  quite  different 

-  ^opinions.  ~"~ 

By  the  latter  date,  though  his  change  was  not  known  far  and 
wide  among  the  masses  throughout  the  country,  yet  his  inti- 
mates and  public  men  in  general, —  in  South  Carolina  at  least, 
—  knew  very  well  thatf^he  had  come  to  think  a  tariff  for 
protection  unconstitutional  and  that  he  had  formulated  the 
method  of  practically  applying  the  doctrine  of  Nullification 
or  State  Veto.-— They  knew,  too,  that  he  thought  the  time  was 
nearly  come  when  the  Southern  States  should  interpose  to 
arrest  the  progress  of  what  he  and  they  thought  a  most  op- 
pressive course  of  legislation.^  From  this  time  on,  he  rapidly 
drifted  into  the  position  of  the  champion  par  excellence  of 
State  Rights.  ^— 

\It  has  been  said  glibly  and  many  times  over  that  disappointed 
ambition, —  the  evident  shipwreck  of  his  Presidential  aspira- 
tion,—  led  to  his  change,1  but  the  reader  will  find  that  he  had 
actually  formulated  the  doctrines  of  his  later  life  and  put  them 

\down  in  black  and  white,  as  well  as  announced  them  widely 
among  his  political  acquaintance,  at  a  time  when  he  had  every 
1  Jackson  so  charged  in  his  famous  Proclamation  of  1832. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     319 

reason  to  count  upon  the  Presidency  as  likely  to  fall  to  him  in 
due  timeT^By  1828  Jackson  had  indeed  grown  too  popular 
for  Calhoun  to  think  of  contesting  against  him;  but  the 
General  was  expected  to  serve  but  four  years, —  from  1829 
to  1833, —  and  Calhoun  had  been  selected  for  the  second  office, 
with  excellent  prospects  for  the  succession  in  1833.  Not 
until  nearly  the  middle  of  Jackson's  first  term  did  Calhoun's 
Presidential  hopes  meet  with  disaster,  and  he  had  actually 
undergone  his  conversion  during  John  Quincy  Adams's  Presi- 
dency,—  two  or  more  years  before  Jackson  had  even  attained 
the  office,  and  hence  several  years  before  the  disappointment 
of  Calhoun's  ambition  came  about.2  Indeed,  in  regard  to  pro- 
tection, on  which  the  contest  actually  first  arose,  it  will  be 
shown  that  his  change  had  begun  as  early  as  1820. 

It  is  a  difficult  chapter  in  this  Life  to  write,  for  the  silence 
almost  of  the  tomb  is  what  reaches  us  for  a  long  time  from 
Calhoun.  He  occupied  the  Vice-Presidency  during  the  greater 
part  of  the  period,  an  office  which  not  only  did  not  call  for 
expressions  of  opinion  on  his  part  but  the  proprieties  of  which 
demanded  that  he  should  be  slow  to  blurt  out  new  views  that 
might  break  in  upon  him,  which  might  yet  turn  out  to  be  but 
half-fledged  fancies.  Nor  is  this  all:  his  private  corre- 
spondence long  throws  no  light  upon  the  subject.  He  was  a 
reticent  man  as  to  a  matter  of  this  kind,  and  evidently  did  not 
write,  nor  probably  talk,  much  about  it  until  his  mind  was 
well  made  up. 

We  are  hence  left  to  the  general  history  of  the  period  in 
order  to  find  out  the  earlier  causes  leading  to  his  change,  but 
I  think  we  shall  find  them  plain  enough  and  almost  com- 
pelling his  course.  It  will  be  necessary,  too,  to  go  back  to 
some  extent  to  the  very  foundation  of  our  government;  for 
some  of  the  controlling  influences  date  back  to  that  time,  and 
even  earlier. 

The  truth  is  that  when  the  present  Constitution  was  drawn 
and  our  Union  formed,  in  1787-89,  the  country  brought  to- 

2  Calhoun  himself  touches  slightly  upon  all  this  in  his  speech  of  Feb- 
ruary 15,  and  16,  1833,  on  the  Force  Bill.  "  Works,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  216-18. 
See  also  "  Autobiography,"  p.  34. 


320  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

gether  contained  two  widely  different  civilizations.  The  frigid 
North  of  the  Puritans  and  the  sub-tropical  South  with  its  slav- 
ery and  hordes  of  negroes  had  little  in  common  other  than  op- 
position of  both  to  the  mother  country  and  an  evident  need 
to  unite  for  protection.  Their  economical  and  social  systems 
were  radically  different,  and  each  section  formed  a  fairly  solid 
unit  within  itself.  The  North  occupied  a  large  and  united 
territory,  throughout  which  much  the  same  civilization  pre- 
vailed; while  the  South  stretched  along  the  lower  Atlantic, 
back  to  the  mountains  and  to  some  extent  beyond  them,  and 
all  this  contiguous  region  of  theirs  was  based  upon  another 
and  strikingly  different  system/of  which  slavery  was  an  in- 
tegral and  controlling  element. 

This  difference  cropped  out  as  early  as  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1787,  and  again  in  1790  it  seems  that  the 
admission  of  Kentucky  into  the  Union  was  delayed  by  the 
North,  until  Vermont  should  be  ready  3  to  serve  as  a  Northern 
counterweight  to  the  new  Southern  sister.  Probably  it  was 
the  same  cause,  also,  that  led  the  elder  Adams  at  seme  time 
during  his  Presidency  to  refuse  the  use  of  his  name  to  aid  a 
college  in  Tennessee,  on  the  ground  that  the  Union  could 
not  last  and  there  was,  hence,  no  reason  for  New  Englanders 
to  promote  a  literary  institution  in  the  South  and  thereby  give 
"  strength  to  those  who  were  to  be  their  enemies."  4 

The  words  of  a  debater  during  the  Missouri  struggle  seem 
to  indicate  other  early  symptoms  of  the  same  fundamental  dif- 
ference. Said  this  member : 

It  is  now  at  least  twenty  years,  that  I  have,  with  some  pain  and 
apprehension,  remarked  the  increasing  spirit  of  local  and  sec- 
tional envy  and  dislike  between  the  North  and  the  South.  A 
continued  series  of  sarcasms  upon  each  other's  circumstances, 
modes  of  living,  and  manners,  so  foolishly  persevered  in,  has 
produced  at  length  that  keen  controversy  which  now  enlists  us  in 
masses  against  each  other  on  the  opposite  sides  of  the  line  of  lat- 
itude.8 

8  Clay  so  asserted  in  the  Missouri  debates,  Benton's  "  Abridgment,"  Vol. 
VI,  pp.  473,  474- 

«" Jefferson's  Works"  (Ford's  edition),  Vol.  I,  p.  300. 
•  Benton's  "  Abridgment,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  478. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     321 

It  seems,  also,  that  Macon  as  early  as  1818  foresaw  pretty 
clearly  the  coming  struggle.  "The  South  country  will  be 
ruined,"  he  wrote  a  friend  in  that  year;  and  then  inveighed 
against  the  abolition  societies,  predicting  that  they  would  yet 
try  the  question  of  emancipation.  "  If  Congress  can  make 
canals,"  he  added,  having  in  view  no  doubt  the  liberal  inter- 
pretation advocated  by  Calhoun  and  some  others,  "  they  can 
with  more  propriety  emancipate.  Be  not  deceived.  I  speak 
soberly  in  the  fear  of  God  and  love  of  the  constitution."  6 

The  country  in  general,  however,  and  most  even  of  its 
leading  men,  took  little  thought  of  this  matter,  and  it  re- 
mained for  the  struggle  over  Missouri,  flashing  suddenly  into 
flame,  to  awaken  public  attention  and  strike  terror  to  the 
hearts  of  the  older  patriots,  who  soon  came  to  realize  that 
a  cause  existed  in  our  midst  which  bore  every  promise  of 
having  the  capacity  to  rend  us  asunder.  It  was  on  the  I5th 
day  of  February,  1819,  that  Tallmadge  proposed  the  re- 
striction on  the  State  of  Missouri  to  prohibit  slavery  within 
her  limits;  and  from  that  time  on  until  the  final  admission  of 
the  State,  on  August  10,  1821,  —  free  of  restriction,  but  with 
the  well-known  Compromise  between  the  two  sections  of  the 
country  that  slavery  should  be  excluded  from  all  the  later  ter- 
ritories north  of  latitude  36°  30',  —  the  desperate  struggle  c 
tinued. 

Into  its  details  we  do  not  need  to  enter  here,  but  the  student 
should  bear  in  mind  that  the  whole  contest  evinced  most  clearly 
a  design  to  arrest  the  spread  of  the  Southern  social  system 
or.^  f^  Km;*..;*  f?  t%vr  Rtf^teg  *«  ydifch  .'fa  fad  already  tteea 
Indeed,  it  proposed  to  do  more,  for  slavery 


was  to  be  extirpated  in  Missouri,  where  it  had  already  existed 
for  years,  and  efforts  were  also  made  to  forbid  it  in  Arkansas, 
which  was  then  erected  into  a  territory  and  where  it  had  al- 
ready been  actually  introduced.7  These  efforts  failed,  but  they 
spoke  in  sfcritnrian  tones  of  the  underlying  object  of  the  North. 
It  should  also  be  mentioned  here,  in  explanation  of  Southern 
outbursts  against  Rufus  King,  that  when  the  flames  of  the 

«  Wm.  E.  Dodd's  "  Nathaniel  Macon,"  pp.  310,  313. 
7  Benton's  "  Abridgment,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  367,  foot-note. 


322  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

contest  seemed  to  die  down  after  the  session  of  Congress  end- 
ing with  March  3,  1819,  King  was  very  active  in  setting  on 
foot  the  concert  of  measures  that  resulted,  as  John  Quincy 
Adams  wrote  8  on  February  20,  1820,  "  in  the  struggle  which 
now  shakes  the  Union  to  its  centre."  The  South  was  not 
likely  to  forget  the  man  whose  opinions  were  among  the  most 
radical  ones  on  the  general  subject,9  and  to  whom  was  due 
the  renewed  effort  to  exclude  her  from  a  region  where  her 
system  seemed  to  belong,  and  into  which  it  had  already  at 
that  date  actually  penetrated. 

It  was,  then,  during  the  Missouri  contest  that  the  two  great 
sections  of  our  country  for  the  first  time  and  most  distinctly 
stood  in  fairly  hostile  array  against  each  other.  The  South 
felt  herself  attacked  and  heard  bitter, —  if  for  the  time  some- 
what veiled, —  invectives  against  a  system  which  was  a  part 
of  her  very  bone  and  fibre.  These  invectives  came,  too,  with 
no  good  grace  from  a  section  that  had  but  recently  rid  itself 
of  the  same  system.  It  was  hardly  for  the  North  so  soon 
to  wrap  itself  in  a  cloak  of  virtue  and  denounce  the  South 
on  that  subject. 

The  attacks  were,  however,  well-nigh  universal  and  by  no 
means  to  be  found  only  in  the  fumes  of  volatile  Congressional 
eloquence.  The  press,  pamphlets,  the  4th  of  July  and  other 
public  meetings  throughout  the  country,  the  pulpit, —  so  often 
merely  echoing  the  popular  passion  of  the  hour, —  all  show- 
ered anathemas  on  the  South,  even  going  so  far  as  to  demand 
openly  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  general.  Beginning  in  the 
great  cities  and  thickly-settled  regions  of  the  North,  "  these 
resolutions  .  .  .  were  reechoed  by  county  meetings,  by  grand 
juries,  and  by  town  meetings  all  over  the  States  from  Mary- 
land eastward,  and  in  time  by  legislatures."  10 

No  wonder  the  Southerners  were  alarmed,  for  the  agitation 
assumed  a  brand  of  inferiority  in  them,  and  threatened  not 
only  to  stop  absolutely  their  expansion  but  also  in  the  end  to 
tear  their  civilization  up  by  the  roots.  Slavery  was  too  closely 

8  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  p.  529. 

8  Ante,  pp.  257,  258. 

»°McMaster's  "United  States,"  Vol  IV,  pp.  577,  578= 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     323 

interwoven  with  every  fibre  of  the  Southerners'  lives  for 
them  to  face  its  extirpation, —  especially  at  the  hands  of  others. 
Numbers  of  their  leaders  had  been  active,  it  is  true,  in  the 
American  Colonization  Society  and  had  expressed  opinions 
against  slavery;  but  the  then  proposals  had  in  view  at  most 
only  a  very  gradual  process  and  were  largely  under  the  control 
of  those  who  lived  in  the  South.  The  effort  of  1819  was  to 
exert  Congressional  authority  and  suddenly  to  uproot  and 
abolish  slavery  in  Missouri,  while  the  denunciations  of  the  sys- 
tem from  all  sources  in  the  North  foretold  in  warning  notes 
what  was  in  the  womb  of  Time,  and  unavoidably  drove  into 
an  attitude  of  self-defense  the  men  of  the  South,  who  had 
grown  up  with  slavery  from  earliest  infancy  and  saw  its  web 
and  woof  all  around  them  on  every  side. 

How  could  it  have  been  extirpated  except  by  revolution, 
or  by  the  slowest  and  most  groping  steps?  And  even  if  it 
might  have  been  gradually  worn  out,  the  question  of  what 
to  do  with  the  hordes  of  fundamentally  incapable  negroes 
stared  the  men  of  the  South  of  that  day  in  the  face  so  squarely 
that  they  realized,  if  darkly  and  dimly,  the  terrible  problem  the 
blacks  have  been  since  the  Civil  War  and  to-day  still  are. 
Perhaps  it  would  be  better  to  say  they  felt  but  did  not  dare 
face  it,  much  as  we  to-day  feel  that  there  is  something  wrong 
in  our  money  system  or  our  labor  system,  with  their  crush- 
ing effects  on  individuals;  but  most  of  us  do  not  dare  to  un- 
dertake their  amendment.  The  problem  was  a  too  terrible 
one  for  the  men  of  any  particular  time  to  attempt  to  solve, 
and  Macon  did  but  express  the  opinion  of  his  whole  section 
when  in  1806  he  said11  in  the  Senate:  "It  is  in  vain  to 
talk  of  turning  these  creatures  loose  to  cut  our  throats." 

At  the  very  same  time,  too,  when  the  Missouri  contest  was 
thus  driving  the  Southerners  to  unite  in  defence  of  their 

11  Annals  of  Congress,  Ninth  Congress,  Second  Session,  p.  225.  This 
was  said  during  the  discussions  of  the  bill  to  prohibit  the  importation  of 
slaves  after  1807,  when  an  amendment  was  offered  to  make  free  any  blacks 
imported  in  violation  of  the  law.  Macon  said  that  there  was  but  one 
opinion  on  the  general  subject,  and  that  was  to  prohibit  importations 
after  that  date ;  but  that  a  law  must  be  made  that  would  be  effective  every- 
where, and  this  amendment  would  not  attain  that  end  (ibid.,  pp.  172,  173). 
Later  in  the  same  discussion  he  made  the  remark  quoted  in  the  text, 


324  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C  CALHOUN 

equality  in  the  Union,  another  question  was  raised,  upon  which 
there  was  much  the  same  alignment  of  the  sections.  In  the 
spring  of  1820,  Baldwin  of  Pennsylvania  brought  in  a  tariff 
bill  making  material  increases  in  the  rates,  and  this  passed  the 
House  but  failed  in  the  Senate,  by  votes  very  much  the  same  as 
those  on  the  Missouri  question.  It  has  been  shown  already 
that,  contrary  to  what  is  often  stated,  the  South  had  cast  a 
majority  of  her  votes  against  the  Tariff  of  1816,  and  on  the 
bill  of  1820  her  vote  in  the  House  was  40  Nays  to  3  Yeas 
(12  not  voting).  At  this  time,  she  was  already  beginning  to 
awake  to  her  isolation  in  the  Union,  and  the  Southern  Pa- 
triot,12 of  Charleston,  wrote  of  the  fact  that  new  party  dis- 
tinctions were  coming  on  "  of  a  far  more  dangerous  character 
and  complexion.  We  allude  to  those  of  a  geographical  na- 
ture, which  a  few  restless  spirits  are  laboring  to  build  up." 

This  idea  of  a  coming  geographical  party  —  meaning  evi- 
dently the  North  uniting  against  the  South  —  was  probably 
widely  held  throughout  the  South  at  that  time,  and  John  Tay- 
lor of  Caroline  wrote  of  it,13  though  he  was  of  opinion  that 
it  could  only  be  a  transitory  line  of  division  and  that  otherwise 
it  would  certainly  lead  to  disunion.  YCalhoun,  too,  in  1827, 
at  a  date  close  to  his  completed  change,  wrote  of  the  same 
r  general  idea  and  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  constitution 
1  did  not  sufficiently  guard  the  different  geographical  inter- 
ests.14     ^ 

12  Issue  of  April  22,  1820;  see  also  issues  of  April  5,  18,  19,  and  May  13. 
That  of  May  13  contains  a  letter  from  Eldred  Simkins,  Calhoun's  intimate 
friend  and  successor  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  expressing  the  opin- 
ion that  the  Baldwin  bill  would  be  "deeply  injurious  to  our  great  agri- 
cultural and  commercial  interests." 

13  Letter  of   December  30,    1820,   printed   by   Prof.   Wm.   E.   Dodd   in 
"The  Nation"  of  March  30,  1911.    The  name  of  Taylor's  correspondent 
does  not  appear. 

14  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  250,  251.    This  was  evidently  the  germ  of  his 
view,  in  very  late  life:  that  both  sections  should  elect  a  President.     See 
"Discourse  on  the  Constitution  and  Government  of  the  United  States" 
in  "Works,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  392-06,  andj  see  also  post,  Vol.  II,  pp.  455,  456. 
The  general  sense  of  isolation  was  well-nigh  universal  throughout  the 
South  in  a  few  years.    Chancellor  Harper  said  in  his  Address  of  Sep- 
tember 20,  1830,  at  Columbia:  "But  it  is  needless  and  impracticable  to 
disguise  the  fact  that  the  South  is  in  a  permanent  minority,  and  that  there 
is  a  sectional  majority  against  it."    Pamphlet  in  the  Library  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  South  Carolina,  and  also  in  the  Library  Co.  of  Philadelphia. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     325 

In  1820  resolutions  were  offered  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives of  South  Carolina,  denouncing  the  tariff  bills  which 
had  been  proposed  in  Congress,  but  they  failed  of  passage.  A 
committee,  to  which  they  were  referred,  while  earnestly 
deprecating  "  the  restrictive  system  attempted  to  be  forced  on 
the  nation,  as  premature  and  pernicious/'  yet  recommended 
that  they  should  be  rejected,  and  spoke  of  "  the  practice,  un- 
fortunately become  too  common,  of  arraying  upon  the  question 
of  national  policy,  the  states  as  distinct  and  independent  sover- 
eignties in  opposition  to,  or  (what  is  much  the  same  thing) 
writh  a  view  to  exercise  a  control  over  the  general  govern- 
ment." 15  Such  was  the  moderation  in  South  Carolina  in  the 
early  days  of  the  protective  movement. 

In  the  same  year  1820,  too,  a  meeting  was  held  in  Charles- 
ton and  a  memorial  drafted  against  the  proposed  Baldwin 
law.16  This  was  equally  a  most  temperate  document,  but  pre- 
sented the  Southern  case  with  great  force  and  much  as  the 
protests  of  later  years  did,  except  for  the  heat  and  the  asser- 
tion of  unconstitutionally.  It  said : 

The  Southern  States  are  not  and  cannot  for  a  long  series  of 
years  become  a  manufacturing  nation.  We  have  not  a  popula- 
tion equal  to  the  cultivation  of  our  soil,  and  the  insalubrity  of 
our  climate  forbids  the  hope  that  this  deficiency  will  soon  if  ever 
be  supplied  by  a  population  of  white  laborers.  We  will,  and 
must  continue  to  raise,  provisions,  articles  of  the  first  necessity 
for  man  in  every  climate,  and  raw  materials  for  the  use  and  con- 
sumption of  manufacturing  nations.  It  is,  therefore,  peculiarly 
our  interest,  that  our  interchange  with  the  world  should  be  free ; 
that  the  markets  for  the  consumption  of  our  produce  should  be 
extended  as  widely  as  the  habitations  of  man.  It  is  equally  our 
interest  that  the  articles  we  are  compelled  to  consume  should 
be  procured  on  the  most  advantageous  terms. 

The  address  then  expressed  the  ever  present  Southern  fear17 

15  Ames's  "  State  Documents,"  &c.,  pp.  134,  135. 

16  The  "Southern   Patriot"   for   September   15  and   16,   1820;  Jerve/s 
"Hayne,"  pp.  106-112. 

1T  This  fear  was  not  without  justification,  and  a  few  years  after  the 
peace  of  1815  the  British  did  try  unsuccessfully  to  supply  their  wants  from 
the  East  Indies.  McMaster's  "United  States,"  Vol.  V,  p.  169.  In  our 
day,  too,  both  the  British  and  Germans  are  at  least  making  similar  efforts. 


326  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

that  Great  Britain  would  put  a  tax  on  articles  of  Southern  growth 
or  procure  them  from  other  countries,  and  concluded,  "  To  man- 
ufacturers we  repeat  we  have  no  hostility.  We  wish  them  to 
share  the  general  prosperity  of  our  country,  and  repose  and 
flourish  under  its  liberal  protection.  But  we  perceive  in  them 
no  features  which  entitle  them  to  partial  favors  or  particular 
privileges.  Against  a  system,  therefore,  calculated  to  elevate  one 
interest  in  a  society  to  an  undue  influence  and  importance,  against 
a  system  intended  to  enrich  one  description  of  citizens  at  the  ex- 
pense of  every  other  class,  against  a  system  calculated  to  ag- 
grandize and  enrich  some  states  to  the  injury  of  others,  against 
a  system  in  every  aspect  partial,  unequal  and  unjust  we  most 
solemnly  protest." 

Nor  were  even  the  Missouri  struggle  and  the  proposed  Bald- 
win tariff  the  only  portents  of  about  that  same  time  to  the 
South;  for  but  two  years  later,  in  the  spring  of  1822,  a  servile 
insurrection  broke  out  in  and  near  Charleston,  instigated  in 
great  part  by  a  free  mulatto,  Denmark  Vesey ;  and  during  the 
trials  growing  out  of  it  there  was  direct  evidence  that  the 
language  in  regard  to  slavery  uttered  by  Rufus  King  in  the 
Senate  during  the  Missouri  debate  had  been  used  to  incite 
the  uprising.18  Modern  men,  by  recalling  the  state  of  panicky 
excitement  we  have  witnessed  during  labor  strikes,  can  per- 
haps realize  to  some  extent  the  feeling  with  which  the  South 
must  have  regarded  this  infinitely  more  appalling  forerunner 
of  the  oft- threatened  general  strike. 

All  these  causes  tended  to  drive  the  men  of  the  South  to 
united  action  in  defense  of  their  interests,  and  particularly 
against  any  suggestion  of  interference  with  slavery;  but  they 
were  by  no  means  allowed  to  live  in  peace  on  this  question. 
From  the  time  of  the  Missouri  contest, —  but  little  before  it, — 
proposal  after  proposal  was  made  in  a  formal  way  looking  to 

18  Jervey's  "  Hayne,"  p.  185.  "Brutus"  also  wrote  in  the  "  Crisis,"  (No. 
XXVI,  p.  133)  :  "  By  the  Missouri  question,  our  slaves  thought  that  there 
was  a  charter  of  liberties  granted  them  by  Congress,  and  the  events 
of  the  summer  of  1822,  as  will  appear  by  the  records  of  the  trials,  and 
the  dying  confessions  of  the  misguided  wretches,  will  long  be  remembered, 
as  amongst  the  choicest  fruits  of  the  agitation  of  that  question  in  Con- 
gress." 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     327 

its  abolition  or  curtailment  by  the  federal  power,  and  these 
were  offered  by  men  who  had  no  personal  interest  in  the 
subject  and  had  probably  given  but  little  thought  to  it.  Doubt- 
less, the  authors  were  often  merely  vieing  with  one  another 
in  the  effort  to  please  constituents. 

Anti-slavery  proposals  of  various  kinds  were  made  during 
the  progress  of  the  Missouri  contest.  Thus,  a  Southerner 
wanted  to  establish  a  registry  of  slaves  by  the  federal  govern- 
ment with  the  object  of  preventing  their  introduction  into  the 
United  States  or  any  territory.19  Foot,  of  Connecticut  moved 
resolutions  prohibiting  slavery  in  any  of  the  territories  and 
requiring  each  intended  new  State  to  insert  in  its  constitution 
an  express  prohibition  thereof,20  and  resolutions  to  this  same 
effect  were  presented  early  in  1820  from  the  Legislatures  of 
New  York,21  Vermont,  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  New 
Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Ohio,  and  Indiana,  all  re- 
solved against  admitting  Missouri  without  a  prohibition  of 
slavery,22  Pennsylvania  putting  in  her  resolution  the  sting  of 
denouncing  the  Missouri  bill  as  "a  measure,  in  brief,  which 
proposed  to  spread  the  crimes  and  cruelties  of  slavery,  from 
the  banks  of  the  Mississippi  to  the  shores  of  the  Pacific." 
Some  of  King's  ideas  as  to  slavery's  having  no  legal  exist- 
ence at  all  in  any  part  of  the  country  have  been  already  men- 
tioned, and  Calhoun  himself  heard  these  same  views  broadly 
maintained  by  John  Quincy  Adams.23 

Ohio  resolved  at  about  this  same  general  period  that  slavery 
was  "  a  national  calamity  as  well  as  a  great  moral  and  political 
evil "  and  wanted  her  delegation  to  use  their  utmost  exertions 
to  exclude  it  from  all  the  territories  or  any  new  State.24  The 
American  Colonization  Society,  despite  its  support  for  some 
years  by  Southern  men,  was  suspected  of  hidden  abolition 

19  Charleston    "  Courier "    of   January   28,    1820.     Annals    of    Congress, 
Sixteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  Vol.  I,  (1819-20),  p.  925. 

20  Charleston  "  Courier  "  of  February  17,  1820.     Benton's  "  Abridgment," 
Vol.  VI,  p.  515- 

21  Benton's  "  Abridgment,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  424. 

22  Ibid.,  p.  416.    Ames's  *  State  Documents,"  etc.,  pp.  196,  197. 

23  Ante,  pp.  257-259. 

2*  Benton's  "  Abridgment."  Vol.  VI,  p.  434. 


328  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

tendencies  as  early  as  1821,  and  by  1824, its  proceedings  surely 
bore  out  this  suspicion.25  The  Society  soon  found  it  advisable 
to  enter  a  denial  and  assert  its  entire  impartiality.26  New  Jer- 
sey in  1824  adopted  resolutions  in  favor  of  gradual  emancipa- 
tion and  colonization27  and  in  this  same  year  Ohio  spoke 
once  more  on  the  subject. 

These  Ohio  resolutions  of  1824  were  very  elaborate  and 
looked  to  gradual  abolition  throughout  the  Union  by  consent 
and  co-operation  of  the  States  and  of  Congress.  The  idea 
was  that  this  could  be  done,  without  infringing  any  one's 
rights,  through  a  system  of  colonization  "  by  the  passage  of 
a  law  by  the  general  government  (with  the  consent  of  the 
slave-holding  States)  which  should  provide,  that  all  children 
of  persons  now  held  in  slavery,  born  after  the  passage  of 
such  law,  should  be  free  at  the  age  of  21  years  (being  sup- 
ported during  their  minority  by  the  persons  claiming  the 
service  of  their  parents)  providing  that  they  consent  to  be 
transported  to  the  intended  place  of  colonization."  28  Was 
this  mere  agitation,  or  a  half -remembered  dream  of  some 
raw  reformer  who  did  not  even  stop  to  think  of  the  absolute 
impossibility  of  securing  the  necessary  agreements  to  his  plan? 

Ohio  was  very  active  upon  the  subject  and  spoke  once 
more  in  1828.  This  time  the  proposal  was  that  her  dele- 
gation should  "  use  their  efforts  to  induce  the  government  of 
the  United  States  to  aid  the  American  Colonization  Society  in 
effecting  the  object  of  their  institution,  which  is  so  eminently 
calculated  to  advance  the  honor  and  interest  of  our  common 
country."  29  In  this  same  year  1828,  too,  an  effort  was  made 
to  enlist  Pennsylvania  in  the  cause,  and  her  House  passed 

25Brutus's  "Crisis,"  No.  XXV,  pp.  121,  122  of  pamphlet.  Report  of 
Seventh  annual  meeting  of  the  American  Colonization  Society,  pp.  7,  13, 
and  passim. 

26  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXIX,  pp.  329,  330,  giving  account  of  the 
Ninth  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Society,  January  29,  1826. 

27  Alice  Davis  Adams's  "  Neglected  Period  of  Anti-Slavery  in  America  " 
(Radcliffe  College  Monographs,  No.  XIV)  p.  91.     Eighth  Annual  Report 
of  American  Colonization  Society. 

28  Alice  Davis  Adams's  "  Neglected  Period,"  p.  91.     "A  Political  History 
of  Slavery,"  by  Wm.  H.  Smith,  Vol.  I,  pp.  23,  24.    Charleston  "  Courier  " 
of  December  9,  1824. 

"Resolution  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Ohio,  contained  in  Acts  of 
Local  Nature,  First  Session,  Twenty-Sixth  General  Assembly,  p.  177. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     329 

resolutions  against  the  existence  of  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia.  Early  the  next  year  both  branches  of  her  Legis- 
lature agreed  upon  similar  resolutions.30 

Bitter  contests  arose,  also,  over  the  South  Carolina  "  Negro 
Seamen  Act  "of  1822,  a  law  which  grew  out  of  the  regula- 
tion of  free  negroes.  These  latter  were  a  very  serious  trou- 
ble, where  slavery  existed,  and  to  a  considerable  extent  through- 
out the  whole  country,31  down  to  as  late  as  1865.  ^n  tne 
South,  they  constituted  a  chief  means  by  which  abolition  ideas 
were  disseminated  among  the  slaves,  and  it  has  been  already 
seen  that  the  South  Carolina  Insurrection  of  1822  owed  its 
origin  in  part  at  least  to  instigation  of  the  slaves  through  them. 

Two  years  before  that  insurrection,  a  law  32  had  been  passed 
upon  the  subject,  prohibiting  the  incoming  of  free  negroes 
and  providing  that,  in  case  any  one  violating  the  law  should 
fail  to  leave  the  State  upon  warning,  he  might,  after  certain 
steps,  be  sold  into  slavery  for  five  years.  And  in  1822, —  the 
same  year  as  the  uprising, —  another  broader  law33  was  en- 
acted which  has  generally  been  known,  from  the  provisions 
of  its  third  section  as  the  "  Negro  Seamen  Act."  This  section 
provided  that  free  negroes  on  any  vessel  coming  into  South 
Carolina  ports  might  be  detained  in  gaol  at  the  captain's  ex- 
pense while  the  vessel  remained,  and  if  these  expenses  should 
not  be  paid  the  negro  might  be  sold  as  an  absolute  slave.  A 
harsh  provision  certainly,  according  to  modern  lights,  and  it 
led  to  representations  in  Washington  from  Great  Britain  and 
was  in  the  opinion  of  our  Attorney  General  unconstitutional. 
This  was,  moreover,  later  decided  by  Judge  Johnson  in  the 
United  States  Circuit  Court 34  of  South  Carolina. 

30  Vol.  V,  Register  of  Debates,  p.  180;  Alice  Davis  Adams's  "Neglected 
Period,"  etc.,  p.  91 ;  Laws  of  Pennsylvania,  1828-29,  p.  371. 

31  Several  Northern  States  passed  laws  to  exclude  negroes  or  to  super- 
vise their  incoming,  down  to  nearly  as  late  as  the  Civil  War.    Ohio,  In- 
diana, Illinois,  and  even  Oregon,  did  so, —  the  last-named  adopting  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  in  1857  to  exclude  them.     Illinois,  by  a  law  of  1853, 
excluded  them  and  directed  that,  in  case  of  violation  of  this  provision, 
the  offending  negro  should  be  fined  and  sold  for  a  time  to  pay  the  debt. 
"  Virginia's  Attitude  toward  Slavery  and  Secession,"  by  Beverley  B.  Mum- 
ford,  Chap.  XI,  pp.  66-74,  169-174. 

32  South  Carolina  Laws,  1820,  pp.  22-24. 

33  South  Carolina  Laws,  1822,  pp.  11-14. 

"Elkinson  vs.  Deliesseline,  Brunner's  Collected  Cases  (N.  S.)  Vol.  I, 


33o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Secretary  of  State  Adams  corresponded  with  the  Governor 
of  South  Carolina  upon  the  subject,  representing  the  impro- 
priety of  the  law  and  the  foreign  troubles  it  created,35  and  here 
was  another  conflict  between  the  federal  government  and 
Calhoun's  native  State,  which  he  must  have  watched  closely 
while  Secretary  of  War,  and  in  which  he  can  hardly  have  long, 
if  at  all,  sided  against  those  in  his  home  region. 

During  the  contest,  Georgia  proposed  about  1824  an  amend- 
ment to  the  federal  constitution  that  no  part  of  it  should  be 
interpreted  to  authorize  the  ingress  of  persons  of  color  into 
any  State  contrary  to  its  laws,36  and  resolutions  were  offered 
in  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  by  Dr.  John  Ramsay37  in 
1824,  reciting  that  the  Legislature  "  protests  against  any  claim 
of  right,  of  the  United  States,  to  interfere  in  any  manner  what- 
ever with  the  domestic  regulations  and  preservatory  measures 
in  respect  to  that  part  of  her  property  which  forms  the  colored 
population  of  the  State,  and  which  property  they  will  not  per- 
mit to  be  meddled  with,  or  tampered  with,  or  in  any  manner 
ordered,  regulated  or  controlled  by  any  other  power,  foreign 
or  domestic,  than  this  legislature."  38 

These  resolutions  were  passed  in  the  Senate,  while  in  the 
House,  far  more  moderate  ones  were  offered  by  Prioleau  and 
passed  by  a  large  majority,  but  even  these,  after  reciting 
that  the  letters  of  the  President  on  the  subject  had  been  "  re- 
spectfully "  considered,  went  on  that  the  measures  in  question 
were  "  simply  part  of  a  general  system  of  domestic  policy, 
defensible  as  such,  and  absolutely  necessary  to  ensure  the 
safety  of  the  citizens;  that  in  the  opinion  therefore  of  this 
Legislature,  the  principle  contained  in  said  section  39  neither 

(U.  S.)  ;  P-  431.    Technically,  Johnson's  opinion  was  probably  not  more 
than  a  dictum,  but  it  was  so  positive  as  to  carry  great  weight. 
i5  McMaster's  "  United  States,"  Vol.  V,  p.  203. 

86  Message  of  the  Governor  of  South  Carolina  of  December,  1824,  as 
contained  in  the  Charleston  "  Courier  "of  December  7,  1824. 

87  Mr.  Hunt  writes  ("  Calhoun,"  p.  80)  that  these  resolutions  were  not 
drawn   by   Ramsay,   but   by   Robert   J.   Turnbull,   the   author   of    "The 
Crisis." 

38  The  Charleston  "Courier"  of  December  9,  1824. 
3*  The  third  section  providing  for  the  detention  in  jail  of  free  negro 
sailors  on  vessels  coming  into  port,  and  their  possible  sale  into  slavery. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     331 

can  nor  ought  to  be  repealed."  40  Neither  set  of  resolutions 
received  the  vote  of  the  two  Houses,  but  they  both  show  the 
almost  universal  belief  in  the  State  as  to  the  necessity  of  the 
laws  in  question  and  a  conviction  that  they  must  be  adhered 
to,  notwithstanding  the  representations  of  the  federal  power 
and  of  foreign  nations. 

>>  Calhoun,  who  was  in  1824  himself  concerned  in  the  contest 
of  Georgia  with  the  federal  government  in  regard  to  the 
Cherokee  lands,  answered  a  delegation  of  objecting  Indians  by 
telling  them  they  must  give  up  the  lands  in  question,  and  upon 
their  refusal  so  to  do  wrote  the  Governor  of  Georgia  inform- 
ing him  of  their  decision,  and  this  answer  brought  forth  a 
hot  answer  from  the  fiery  Troup,  denouncing  the  federal 
government  for  its  sloth  and  failure  to  keep  its  agreement  to 
extinguish  the  Indian  title./  Calhoun  saw,  too,  of  course,  a 
very  few  years  later  and  while  he  was  an  opponent  of  Adams's 
administration,  that  Troup  went  on  and  made  a  survey  of  the 
lands  in  question,  in  the  teeth  of  Adams's  threat  to  stop 
him  by  force.41 

The  extent  of  the  Southern  excitement  on  the  general  sub- 
ject crops  out  in  other  ways.  In  1823,  John  Quincy  Adams 
records42  that  at  a  dinner,  when  the  decision  of  Judge  Johnson 
that  the  Negro  Seamen  Act  was  unconstitutional  became  a 
subject  of  conversation,  Hayne  —  then  and  always  a  close 
friend  of  Calhoun  — "  discovered  so  much  excitement  and 
temper  that  it  became  painful  and  necessary  to  change  the 
topic,"  and  the  same  authority  writes 43  of  Rufus  King's  tell- 
ing him  in  May,  1824,  that  it  would  be  absolutely  necessary 
to  annex  a  limitation  to  the  Slave  Trade  Convention  then 
pending  in  the  Senate,  so  great  was  the  panic  of  the  South- 

40 The  Charleston  "Courier"  of  December  22,  1824.  It  is  often  not 
mentioned  that  the  Act  was,  after  all,  very  materially  altered  by  a  new 
law  upon  the  subject  passed  in  1823,  the  8th  section  of  which  provided 
that  the  Act  should  not  apply  to  free  negroes  on  any  war  vessel  of 
the  United  States  or  of  a  European  power  in  amity  with  us,  unless  found 
on  shore  after  being  warned  to  stay  on  board.  It  also  repealed  the  pro- 
vision for  sale  of  the  negro,  and  directed  corporal  punishment.  South 
Carolina  Laws,  1823,  pp.  59-63.  Jervey's  "Hayne,"  p.  179.  This  act  of 
1823  was  again  amended  and  extended  in  1835  (Laws,  &c.,  pp.  34-39), 
but  the  provisions  of  the  8th  section  were  not  changed. 

41  McMaster's  "  United  States,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  177-201. 

*2  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  176. 

*8  Ibid  .  o.  12/a. 


332  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

ern  members  over  late  speeches  in  the  British  Parliament  in 
regard  to  abolition.  Again,  Adams  tells  us44  in  March,  1825, 
that  the  Southern  men  were  uniting  together  —  a  very  indic- 
ative symptom  of  the  day,  sure  to  have  had  its  influence  on 
Calhoun, —  while  in  the  same  year  a  prominent  Charleston 
paper 45  spoke  of  King's  proposal  in  the  Senate  to  raise  a  fund 
from  the  sales  of  public  lands  to  aid  in  emancipation  and 
colonization  as  "  an  inflammatory  proposition  ...  an  un- 
hallowed and  desperate  attempt  to  excite  the  public  mind 
upon  a  certain  subject." 

During  the  debates  in  1826  on  the  proposed  Panama  Mis- 
sion, when  it  came  out  that  propositions  possibly  looking  to 
abolition  were  likely  to  be  among  the  subjects  of  discussion, 
Hayne  declared  solemnly  that  the  Southern  States  "  never 
will  permit  and  never  can  permit  any  interference  whatever 
in  their  domestic  concerns,  and  that  the  very  day  on  which 
the  unhallowed  attempt  shall  be  made  by  the  authority  of  the 
Federal  Government,  we  will  consider  ourselves  as  driven  from 
the  Union/'46  And  in  1828  Georgia  resolved  that  "this 
State  never  can  and  never  will  so  far  compromise  her  interests 
on  a  certain  subject  of  such  deep  and  vital  concern  to  her 
self-preservation  as  to  suffer  this  question  to  be  brought  into 
consideration."  47 

Despite  all  this  heat  and  wrangling  in  regard  to  the  slavery 
question,  the  first  breach  between  the  sections  did  not  arise 
on  that  issue.  Slavery  was  beyond  question  the  great  underly- 
ing first  cause,  as  we  may  say, —  and  it  will  be  found  that 
Calhoun  realized  this  in  a  few  years, —  but  the  actual  breach 
sprang  up  upon  another  difference.  The  advocates  of  pro- 
tection by  no  means  remained  contented  with  their  repulse  in 
1820.  On  the  contrary,  their  appetite  grew,  and  the  next 

**  Ibid.,  p.  525. 

"The  "Gazette"  of  June  i,  1825,  cited  in  Jervey's  "Hayne,"  p.  186; 
King's  proposal  was  offered  on  February  18,  1825,  and  is  to  be  found 
in  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  I  (1824-2-5),  p.  623. 

*fl  McMaster's  "  United  States,"  Vol.  V,  p.  446.  Congressional  Debates, 
Vol.  II,  Part  I  (1825-26),  p.  165.  Hayne  was  speaking  in  reference  to 
some  resolutions  that  he  had  introduced  in  answer  to  those  of  King,  just 
referred  to.  King's  resolutions  were  not  allowed  to  be  debated,  and 
Hayne  took  this  way  of  meeting  them. 

47  Georgia  Laws,  1828,  pp.  174-79. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     333 

decade  witnessed  a  vast  increase  of  the  tariff  hunger  and  the 
passage  of  laws  containing  rates  which  would  not  have  been 
dreamed  to  be  possible  earlier. 

At  the  very  next  session  after  the  defeat  of  1820,  Baldwin 
presented  resolutions  favoring  an  increase,  and  in  1823  his 
successor  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures, 
Tod  of  Pennsylvania,  brought  in  a  bill  to  raise  the  rates,  but 
failed  to  get  it  through  the  House.48  Finally,  in  1824  the 
friends  of  the  "  American  System  "  succeeded  in  enacting  a 
new  law  upon  the  subject,  which  made  a  general  increase.^ 
These  efforts  by  no  means  went  without  criticism  in  the  i 
South,  and  upon  the  bill  of  1824,  as  upon  all  the  other  tariff 
laws  of  the  period,  that  section  voted  against  it  with  practical 
unanimity.  Of  the  fifty-six  members  in  the  House  from  the 
seven  contiguous  States  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama,  fifty- 
four  voted  Nay,  one  did  not  vote,  and  there  was  but  one 
single  Aye,  coming  from  Virginia. 

Unanimity  of  this  sort  does  not  arise  either  from  chance  or 
from  mere  perversity.  There  must  have  been  a  reason  for  it, 
and  the  truth  is  that  the  reason  was  as  plain  as  the_jioon-day 
sun  and  quite  enough  to  bring  about  the  result.J^The  South-'" 
produced  cotton  and  some  other  crops,  of  which  a  large  por-  :/7 
tion  was  sent  abroad  from  their  own  harbors.  In  carrying 
on  this  export,  the  vessels  that  came  to  Southern  ports  for 
cotton  to?  the  English  mills  arrived  laden  with  foreign-made 
wares.  /All  sorts  of  articles  were  brought  from  abroad  and 
sold  at  prices  with  which  domestic  manufacturers  could  not 
pretend  to  compete.  The  interchange  thus  arising  had,  more- 
over, gone  on  for  a  number  of  years,  so  that  every  vessel 
coming  from  Liverpool  to  Charleston  or  Savannah  for  cotton 
is  said  to  have  been  laden  with  articles  the  planters  con- 
sumed, and  an  "  immense  trade  had  grown  up  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  South."  49 

This  system  had  in  time  closely  interwoven  itself  with  the 
lives  of  the  Southern  planters,  and  their  social  and  economical  . 

48  Stanwood's  "  Tariff  Controversies,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  197,  198. 
«»  McMaster's  "  United  States,"  Vol.  V,  p. 


334  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

habits  were  largely  based  on  it.  Their  houses  and  farms  were 
full  of  its  products.  Thousands  of  Southern  people  must 
have  gained  their  daily  bread  by  looking  after  its  business  de- 
tails, and  they  owned,  as  well  as  built,  not  a  few  of  the  vessels 
engaged  in  the  commerce.  The  interchange  had  indeed  be- 
come an  integral  part  of  their  civilization^  In  every  step  of 
the  process,  they  were  thrown  into  close  connection  of  many 
kinds  with  Great  Britain,  and  this  course  of  business,  so  mark- 
edly different  from  what  prevailed  in  the  country  in  general, 
had  developed  throughout  the  whole  South  a  strong  feeling  of 
solidarity  and  of  unity  among  the  people  of  that  section. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said  that  these  very  close  relations  with 
a  foreign  country  tended  to  make  tHe  Southerners  forget  to 
some  extent  that  they  were  Americans;  but,  if  some  see  in 
this  a  theoretical  substratum  of  truth,  it  had,  at  least,  not 
found  actual  expression;  and  the  South  had  at  no  time  been 
slow  to  assume  a  generous  part  in  all  our  struggles  and  bat- 
tles. 

V  Remembering,  then,  the  system  of  commercial  relations 
mat  had  grown  up  and  sent  its  roots  deep  down  all  through  the 
Southern  States,  what  did  the  Tariff  Act  of  1824  and  the 
still  more  radical  later  ones  propose  to  do  ?  Their  very  design 
was  to  break  up  and  dislocate  all  these  habits  of  years  and 
to  force  the  Southern  planters  to  change  enormously  their  long 
formed  habits/  They  must  cease  buying  the  articles  they 
wanted  and  were  used  to,  that  fitted  in  their  houses  and  on 
their  farms,  that  they  had  learned  to  handle  in  youth;  and 
they  were  now  to  be  compelled  for  the  benefit  of  the  other  sec- 
tion of  the  country  to  buy  instead  more  or  less  different  and 
for  the  time  at  least  inferior  articles  of  home  make  at  higher 
prices. 

This  was  to  be  the  case,  too,  not  merely  as  to  some  classes 
of  citizens  but  as  to  all, —  or  the  vast  majority, —  of  those 
whose  lot  was  cast  in  any  one  of  the  seven  States  named. 
The  indictment  was  drawn  against  the  whole  people.  They 
must  all  learn  new  methods  at  the  behests  of  the  North,  and 
many  thousands  engaged  in  the  commerce  I  have  attempted  to 
depict  were  to  find  their  occupations  swept  away  from  them 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     335 

so  that  they  must  start  anew  in  life.  Nor  could  there  be  any 
valid  pretence  of  a  design  to  raise  the  price  of  what  the  plant- 
ers sold,  and  thus  make  up  to  them  the  losses  they  were  forced 
to  suffer  from  having  to  buy  in  a  restricted  market. 

Can  we  wonder,  when  we  are  told  50  that  in  1825  the  South- 
erners were  beginning  to  unite  for  self -protection?  Or  that 
they  objected  and  scolded,  remonstrated,  passed  many  reso- 
lutions, denounced,  threatened,  all  in  their  fiery  Southern  way  ? 
Or  even  that  they  began  in  a  few  years  to  calculate  the  value 
of  the  Union,  while  the  hotter  heads  among  them  advocated 
secession  or  some  sort  of  violence,  and  that  finally  after  ten 
long  years  of  agitation  and  utterly  unavailing  effort,  one 
among  them  endowed  with  a  mind  of  most  unusual  power, 
seeking  a  remedy  for  his  people,  thought  he  found  it  in  State 
Interposition  or  Nullification  —  the  means  which  it  is  to  my 
mind  demonstrable  (unless  words  be  really  designed  for  the 
purpose  of  hiding  our  meaning)  that  Jefferson  and  Madison 
and  others  of  the  Fathers  had  pointed  out  as  the  strictly  legal 
mode  of  stopping  extra-constitutional  actions  on  the  part  of  the 
federal  government? 

There  is  one  other  view  of  the  matter  which  it  is  vital  to 
bear  in  mind.  The  fundamental  point  in  contest  between  the 
North  and  South,  then,  as  well  as  before  and  after,  was 
at  bottom  the  question  of  control.  Each  section  wanted  to 
have  the  upper  hand  in  the  Union  and  not  to  run  any  risk  of 
being  exploited  or  injured  by  the  other.  In  the  earlier  days, 
when  the  South  had  the  greater  power  in  federal  affairs  and 
there  was  a  succession  of  Southern  Presidents,  New  England 
was  for  years  in  a  chronic  state  of  disunion  sentiment,  and 
the  hysterical,  strident,  scolding  of  her  men  of  the  cold  North- 
ern type  will  easily  rival  that  of  the  hot-blooded  Southrons, 
with  which  we  have  to  deal,  when  they  in  turn  found  them- 
selves drifting  into  a  minority. 

This  fundamental  cause  seems  as  plain  as  any  single  ele- 
ment can  well  be  in  complicated  public  affairs,51  but  not  much 

»°  J.  Q.  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"'  Vol.  VI,  p.  $25. 

51  J.  A.  Woodburn,  in  his  article  on  "  The  Historical  Significance  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise"  (Report  of  American  Historical  Association, 
1893,  pp.  251-297),  writes,  at  p.  294,  that  at  the  time  of  the  struggle,  the 


336  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

ls^in  general  said  of  it.  Scattering  recognitions  are  to  be 
found  at  the  time  in  question,  but  historians  generally  leave 
it  out  of  view  and  write  glowingly  of  the  moral  causes  which 
led  for  instance  to  the  effort  to  exclude  slavery  from  Mis- 
souri. It  is  by  no  means  my  purpose  to  question  the  existence 
of  these  motives,  and  they  undoubtedly  were  the  controlling 
ones  as  to  the  actions  of  many  private  citizens.  It  may 
perhaps  even  be  that  a  majority  of  Northerners,  not  actively 
engaged  in  the  political  struggle,  felt  somewhat  as  it  will  be 
shown52  that  in  1820  and  1821  Calhoun  understood  them  to 
feel,  that  the  struggle  involved  only  the  question  of  the  ex- 
tension of  slavery.  "  Under  this  view,"  he  went  on,  "  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  much  excitement  was  caused. 
They  viewed  it  in  some  degree  in  the  same  light,  that  they  • 
would  the  opening  of  the  ports  to  the  introduction  of  Afri- 
cans/' 

But  it  is  a  far  call  from  this  to  the  belief  that  the  politicians, 
big  or  little,  who  made  the  issue  and  persistently  fanned  its 
flames,  were  blind  to  its  strategic  value  in  the  game  they  were 
playing,  or  that  hosts  of  private  citizens  failed  to  appre- 
ciate that  here  was  the  way  "  to  be  rid  of  Southern  Presi- 
dents." 53  To  suppose  that  Rufus  King,  for  example,  when 
he  intentionally  laid  the  mines  between  the  end  of  one  and  be- 
ginning of  another  Congress  to  start  the  issue  up  anew,  was 
not  far  more  guided  by  the  desire  to  secure  the  mastery  for 
his  section  and  even  party,  is  to  suppose  that  he  and  those  with 

I  him  had  lost  the  Anglo-Saxon  instinct  for  self-government. 
It  was  again  in  connection  with  the  Missouri  contest  that 
this  question  of  control  first  became  very  prominent.  No  less 
than  eight54  members  referred  to  it  during  the  debates,  one 
saying: 

Southerners  "first  came  to  believe  that  the  issue  of  this  struggle  for 
more  slave  states  involved  their  political  destiny  and  identity,  This  is 
the  true  significance  of  the  Missouri  question." 

52  Infnp,  p.  342. 
3  McMaster's  "  United  States,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  577,  et  seq. 

84 "James  Barbour^  of  Virginia,"  Benton's  "Abridgment,"  Vol.  IV, 
P- 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     337 

I  greatly  fear  .  .  .  that  gentlemen  are  fighting  under  false 
colors  —  that  they  have  not  yet  hoisted  their  true  flag.  .  .  . 
Would  it  not  be  more  magnanimous  to  haul  down  the  colors  on 
which  are  engraven  humanity,  morality  and  religion  and  in  lieu 
thereof  unfurl  the  genuine  banner,  on  which  is  written  a  con- 
test for  political  consequence  and  mastery? 

Lowndes,  too,  realized  at  an  early  day  that  the  question  wasA 
fundamentally  one  of  power  between  the  sections,  and  pre/J 
dieted55  that  it  would  affect  opinion  in  the  North  as  to  the 
then  pending  treaty  for  the  acquisition  of  Florida.     He  doubt- 
less foresaw  that  the  North  would  no  longer  want  to  take  into 
the  Union  a  large  territory,  which  must  contribute  to  the  in- 
crease of  her  rival's  power.     How  right  he  was,  the  near 
future  showed,56  and  even  the  draughtsman  of  the  treaty  on  the 
American  side,  who  had  long  been  intensely  interested,  became 
soon  very  cold  in  regard  to  the  whole  matter. 

The  South  also  lost  interest  in  Florida  at  about  the  same 
time,57  and  evidently  for  similar  reasons.  Thus,  Jefferson 
wrote  Monroe  in  May,  i82O,58  suggesting  that  the  Florida 
treaty  be  set  aside  and  that  "  we  should  look  to  the  occupa- 
tion of  Texas."  He  can  only  have  meant  that  if  the  North 
intended  to  try  and  curb  the  Southern  growth  in  Missouri,  the 
South  should  in  turn  make  every  effort  to  secure  for  the 
Union  some  other  larger  stretch  of  territory  still  more  sure  to 
be  under  the  control  of  Southern  civilization. 

At  about  the  time  with  which  we  have  to  do,  a  marked  change 
in  the  relative  power  of  the  two  sections  was  taking  place. 
Hence,  doubtless,  this  proposal  of  Jefferson's  and  hence  all 
the  other  efforts  of  Southerners, —  then  and  later, —  to  have 
the  Union  acquire  more  land  that  should  be  under  their  control. 
This  was  their  answer  to  the  design  to  make  of  them  a  d\vin- 

ington  of  Pennsylvania,"  ibid.,  p.  547 ;  "  Tucker  of  Virginia,"  ibid.,  p.  559. 
The  quotation  is  from  Hardin's  speech. 

55  J.  Q.  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  480,  496,  502,  503,  506. 
Adams  also  saw  that  the  question  was  one  of  power,  ibid.,  Vol.  V,  pp.  15, 
19,  26. 

58  Ibid.,  pp.  19,  26,  53. 

57  Ibid.,  pp.  lop,  ipi,  180. 

88  Mentioned  in  ibid.,  p.  128.  The  diarist  records  in  February  1820, 
that  two  Southern  Senators  wanted  to  "  take  "  Texas ;  "  Memoirs,"  Vol. 
IV,  p.  518. 


338  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

dling  minority,  which  was  shown  at  the  time  of  the  Missouri 
outburst.  In  earlier  days,  they  had  had  far  more  power  and 
their  outlook  in  general  had  been  far  brighter. 

After  the  peace  with  Great  Britain  in  1815,  and  the  end 
of  the  long  European  wars,  a  great  demand  had  sprung  up 
abroad  for  the  products  of  the  Southern  soil.  Fortune  seemed 
to  smile  on  that  section  and  there  was  soon  an  extensive  mi- 
gration of  her  people  to  the  region  west  of  them,  and  a  vast 
area  of  virgin  land  of  immense  fertility  was  rapidly  opened. 
What  influence  this  had  on  prices  and  on  the  later  depression 
in  the  South  will  be  touched  upon  hereafter,  but  the  peace 
held  forth  the  promise  of  a  great  future  to  them,  and  their 
people  were  buoyant  with  hope.  On  the  other  hand,  the  same 
causes  largely  took  from  New  England  the  carrying  trade  of 
the  world,  and  soon  the  market  abroad  for  her  grain  was  also 
greatly  curtailed.  The  South,  —  both  before  and  at  this  time 
and  for  several  years  afterward,  —  largely  controlled  the  Un- 
ion, but  somewhere  about  1820  this  control  began  to  leave  her 
and  to  gravitate  into  the  hands  of  the  North. 
,/  The  falling  behind  of  the  South  is  usually  put  down  to 
^slavery;  and  doubtless  that  institution  was  a  contributing 
cause,  but  there  was  another  very  potent  one,  and  that  was  the 
new  States  and  the  rapidly  growing  territories  northwest 
of  the  Ohio  River.  '-'Words  have  had  a  vast  influence  in  the 
formation  of  historical,  as  of  all  human,  beliefs,  and  the  two 
words  "  the  West  "  seem  often  to  have  misled  us.  In  and  near 
the  days  of  our  constitutional  origin,  those  words  were  used  al- 
most exclusively  to  denote  the  new  States  of  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee,  coming  ere  long  to  include  also  the  more  southern 
portion  of  the  Louisiana  purchase.  All  this  region  must  evi- 
dently be  a  part  of  the  South,  and  few,  if  any,  were  far  seeing 
enough  to  anticipate  so  early  the  rush  of  settlement  to  the 
more  northern  portions  of  our  vacant  territory.  Hence,  the 
biteij^orthern  opposition  to  "  the  West,"  and  her  unquestion- 

curb  iu    ruiilli.  — 


How  differentwaalTtHis  in1  a  "few  years,  —  say,  by  1820,  — 
when  the  country  had  grown  used  to  Kentucky  and  Tennessee, 
had  accepted  as  a  necessity  Louisiana,  Mississippi  and  Ala- 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     339 

bama,  and  "  the  West "  had  come  to  refer  far  more  to  the 
highly  prosperous  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois  and  the 
other  rapidly  advancing  regions  of  the  Northwest  —  all  certain 
in  the  main  to  add  their  voices  and  power  to  the  North. 
New  England  was  by  this  date  far  less  inclined  to  burst  forth 
into  strident  opposition  to  "  the  West,"  and  in  the  Hayne- 
Webster  debate  a  decade  later  both  sections  strove  hard  to 
win  the  support  of  the  new  region.  The  change  in  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term  was  hardly  recognized  even  then;  but  the 
South  soon  came  to  know  that  the  West  of  about  1820-30 
would  never  be  a  part  of  her. 

In  this  increase  of  power  of  the  North  through  the  growth 
of  the  new  West  is  undoubtedly  to  be  found  the  cause  that 
rendered  it  possible  to  wage  the  Missouri  contest  and  force  a 
compromise  by  virtue  of  which  the  South  was  thenceforth 
to  be  excluded  from  regions  of  latitude  into  which  the  ex- 
perience of  Missouri  had  shown  that  she  could  carry  her 
civilization;  and  to  the  power  of  the  votes  from  the  same 
new  region  were  also  largely  due  the  various  Tariff  Acts, 
which  the  South  looked  upon  as  so  injurious  to  her. 

The  chief  question  here,  of  course,  is  how  all  this  growth 
of  public  sentiment  and  affairs  throughout  the  country,  and 
more  especially  in  his  home  section,  was  likely  to  affect  Cal- 
houn.  It  has  been  gone  into  at  some  length,  for  the  reason 
that  it  is  absolutely  vital  to  an  understanding  of  him  at  this 
period  of  his  life.  It  was  the  air  he  breathed,  the  soil  in  which 
his  opinions  grew,  his  daily  and  hourly  environment.  If  we 
cannot  to  some  extent  realize  his  feeling  and  that  of  the 
South  upon  the  subjects  in  dispute,  it  will  be  vain  to  attempt  to 
understand  either  him  or  his  section:  but,  if  we  can  do  so, 
their  course  will  seem  far  more  natural,  and  perhaps  even 
unavoidable;  always  bearing  in  mind,  however,  that  the  lurid 
passion  shown  below  Mason  and  Dixon's  line  was  ever  pitched 
in  a  higher  key  than  belongs  to  the  colder  blood  of  the  North. 

It  is  trite  to  say  that  we  can  form  no  just  judgment  of  his- 
tory, or  of  the  characters  of  the  dead,  unless  we  to  some  ex- 
tent bring  back  their  surroundings  and  bathe  ourselves  anew, 
as  it  were,  in  the  civilization  of  their  day.  The  reader  must 


340  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

then  bear  in  mind  what  has  already  been  emphasized  more  than 
once :  that  slavery,  inherited  from  the  past,  was  almost  drunk 
in  by  the  Southerner  with  his  mother's  milk,  was  all  about 
him  and  tied  up  with  his  whole  social  and  economical  system 
by  a  thousand  vital  chords.  And  he  must  remember,  too, 
the  apparent  impossibility  of  eradicating  it  and  the  natural 
dread  of  interference  by  a  Central  Government,  the  control 
of  which  was  at  that  very  time  visibly  passing  out  of  Southern 
hands. 

Some  of  their  leaders  early  saw  the  dangers  ahead  of  them. 
Macon  and  Randolph,  for  instance,  were  from  the  beginning 
most  decided  in  opposition  to  any  discussion  at  all  of  slavery 
in  Congress,  and  Randolph  said  59  in  1826  that  he  and  Macon, 
at  the  time  of  the  Missouri  struggle  "  were  determined  to  have 
no  compromise  at  all  on  this  subject.  They  determined  to  cavil 
on  the  nineteenth  part  of  a  hair  in  a  matter  of  sheer  right  — 
touching  the  dearest  interests  —  the  life-blood  of  the  Southern 
States."  And  Benton,  who,  though  a  Southerner  and  a 
slaveholder,  was  a  strong  Union  man  during  the  times  of  the 
prologue  to  the  Civil  War,  gave  us  an  idea  of  the  feeling  at 
the  time  of  the  Missouri  struggle,  when  he  wrote  late  in  life: 

It  was  a  period  of  deep  apprehension,  filling  with  dismay  the 
hearts  of  the  steadiest  patriots.  .  .  .  The  movement  to  put  the 
slavery  restriction  on  Arkansas  .  .  .  seemed  to  menace  the  slave 
States  with  total  exclusion  from  the  province  of  Louisiana.60 

;. 

Far  different  was  the  case  with  Calhoun,  who  seems  to  have 
been  for  some  time  unconscious  of  the  real  meaning  of  the 
Missouri  contest.  It  is  true  that  on  August  12,  1820,  when 
the  third  contest  was  looming  up,  he  wrote : 61 

I  can  scarcely  conceive  of  a  cause  of  sufficient  power  to  divide 

6fr  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  II,  Part  I,  1825-26,  p.  354.  In  1838, 
Calhoun  expressed  the  opinion  ("Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  185),  that  if 
Randolph's  course,  which  he  had  then  thought  "  too  unyielding,  too  uncom- 
promising, too  impracticable,"  had  been  followed,  "abolition  might  have 
been  crushed  forever  in  its  birth." 

'"Abridgment  of  Debates,"  etc.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  372.  This  refers  to  the 
period  after  the  total  failure  of  the  Missouri  Bill  in  March,  1819,  at  the 
expiration  of  the  Fifteenth  Congress. 

"Letter  to  Gallaway  in  the  Markoe  Papers  in  Library  of  Congress, 
quoted  in  Hunt's  "  Calhoun,"  pp.  54,  55. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     341 

this  Union,  unless  a  belief  in  the  slaveholding  states,  that  it  is 
the  intention  of  the  other  states  gradually  to  undermine  their 
property  in  their  slaves  and  that  a  disunion  is  the  only  means 
to  avert  the  evil.  Should  so  dangerous  a  mode  of  believing  once 
take  root,  no  one  can  calculate  the  consequences;  and  it  will  be 
found  that  a  reagitation  of  the  Missouri  question  will  tend 
strongly  to  excite  such  a  belief. 

But  this  letter  appears  to  set  forth  his  fears  rather  than  his 
beliefs,  and  he  wrote  quite  differently  in  a  slightly  later  and 
more  careful  expression  of  opinion.  This  was  dated  August 
26,  1820,  and  addressed  to  Judge  Charles  Tait,  an  old  friend 
who  had  migrated  to  Alabama : 62 

I  cannot  but  think  that  the  impression,  which  exists  on  the 
minds  of  many  of  your  virtuous  and  well  informed  citizens  to 
the  South,  and  among  others  are  your  own,  that  there  has  com- 
menced between  the  North  and  the  South  a  premeditated  strug- 
gle for  superiority,  is  not  correct.  That  there  are  some  indi- 
viduals to  the  north,  who  for  private  objects,  wish  to  create  such 
a  struggle,  I  do  not  doubt.  It  suits  their  ambition,  and  gives 
them  hopes  of  success,  as  the  majority  of  votes  both  in  Con- 
gress and  the  electoral  college  is  from  the  north;  or  rather  from 
the  non-slave  holding  States.  But  their  number  is  very  small, 
and  the  few  there  are,  are  to  be  found  almost  wholly  in  New 
York,  and  the  middle  states.  I  by  no  means  identify  the  advo- 
cates for  restriction  on  i3  Missouri  with  them.  The  advocates  of 
restriction  are  actuated  by  a  variety  of  motives.  The  great  body 
of  them  are  actuated  by  motives  perfectly  honest.  Very  few 
indeed  look  to  emancipation.  I  state  the  case,  as  I  am  well  as- 
sured that  it  existsA*  We  to  the  South  ought  not  to  assent  easily 
to  the  belief,  that  there  is  a  conspiracy  either  against  our  prop- 
erty, or  just  weight  in  the -Union.  A  belief  of  the  former  might, 
and  probably  would,  lead  to  the  most  disastrous  consequence. 
Nothing  would  lead  more  directly  to  disunion  with  all  of  its  hor- 
rors. ...  I  have  sometimes  fears  that  the  Missouri  question 
will  create  suspicions  to  the  south  very  unfavorable  to  a  correct 
policy.64jj^>hould,  emancipation  be  attempted  it  must,  and  will  be 

62 "Gulf  States  Historical  Magazine,"  Vol.  I,  (September,  1902),  pp.  98- 
100. 

63  In  the  letter  as  printed,  "  on "  is  "  and,"  but  this  must  be  an  error. 

«*  Meaning  a  liberal  federal  policy,  such  as  Calhou*  had  theretofore 
advocated. 


342  LIFE  .OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

resisted  at  all  costs,/but  let  us  be  certain  first  that  it  is  the  real 
object,  not  by  a  few' but  by  a  large  portion  of  the  non-slave  hold- 
ing states.  Our  political  horizon  presents  no  reasons  to  ex- 
pect a  storm.  All  exhibit  marks  of  quiet,  which  I  hope,  may  long 
continue.  .  .  . 

Again,  a  year  later,  after  the  admission  of  Missouri  and  the 
end  of  the  contest  and  when  Calhoun  had  evidently  heard 
very  different  opinions  from  his  own  from  Tait,  he  wrote65 
him  to  much  the  same  effect  as  in  his  letter  of  1820.  After 
expressing  the  conviction  that  his  correspondent's  views  were 
erroneous,  he  writes  that  he  did  not  "  in  the  least  doubt,  but 
that  the  Missouri  question  was  got  up  by  a  few  designing 
politicians  in  order  to  extend  their  influence  and  power.  .  .  ." 
And  goes  on : 

But  we  are  not  to  infer,  that,  as  the  politicians  were  sus- 
tained by  the  North  on  the  Missouri  question,  the  people  in 
that  quarter  entered  into  their  views,  or  that  even  the  leaders 
were  actuated  by  a  hatred  to  the  South,  rather  than  a  restless 
ambition.  The  North  considered  it  as  a  single  question,  involv- 
ing only  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  under  this  view,  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  much  excitement  was  caused.  They 
viewed  it  in  some  degree  in  the  same  light,  that  they  would 
the  office  [opening?]  of  the  ports  to  the  introduction  of  Africans 
while  the  South,  regarding  its  possible  tendency,  considered  it 
in  a  character  wholly  different,  and  as  involving  in  its  conse- 
quence the  question  of  abolition.  .  .  .  When  I  see  one  of  your 
age,  experience,  wisdom  and  virtue  thinking  as  you  do  on  this 
point,  I  confess,  I  am  alarmed  if  I  say  to  myself,  if  the  Missouri 
question  has  excited  such  feelings  in  the  breast  of  so  experienced 
and  virtuous  a  citizen,  what  must  be  its  effects  in  our  section  of 
the  country  on  those  less  wise  and  virtuous.  .  ...-' 

It  is  thus  evident  that  Calhoun  did  not  then  see  the  Missouri 
contest  as  the  beginning  of  that  struggle  between  the  sections 
which  history  has  since  shown  it  to  have  been ;  but  his  letter  to 
Tait  makes  it  clear  at  the  same  time  that  he  was  deeply  im- 
pressed, and  even  alarmed,  by  the  views  held  on  the  subject 

M  Ibid.,  pp.  102-104. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     343 

by  his  correspondent  and  feared  they  were  wide-spread  through 
the  South. 

Some  other  hints  upon  the  general  subject  reach  us,  and 
he  was  evidently  a  close  observer  of  the  events  of  the  day. 
Thus,  he  went  to  the  Senate  to  hear  William  Pinkney's 
famous  speech  on  the  Missouri  question.  'He  had  several 
talks  with  Adams  in  regard  to  the  struggle,  and  in  one  of  these 
the  two  friends  discussed  what  would  happen  in  case  of 
the  Union's  breaking  asunder.  He  heard,  too  (it  has  been 
shown),  in  March,  1820,  Adams's  assertion  of  the  bald  opin- 
ion that  slavery  had  no  legal  existence  in  the  country,  and  that 
the  courts  would  so  declare.  Adams  found  him  in  May,  1820, 
when  the  Compromise  as  to  Missouri  had  been  passed,  but 
the  wounds  it  had  left  were  still  gaping,  full  of  gloomy  views 
as  to  public  affairs,  and  in  November  of  that  same  year,  when 
the  sectional  struggle  burst  out  again  over  the  clause  as  to 
free  negroes  in  the  Missouri  constitution,  the  diarist  records 
that  Calhoun  was  in  great  concern  at  its  reappearance.66 

In  regard  to  the  other  chief  bone  of  contention, —  the  tariff, 
W-it  has  been  seen67  that  Calhoun  both  spoke  and  voted  in 
fWor  of  the  Act  of  1816;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that 
that  Act,  though  beyond  question  a  measure  for  protection, 
was  yet  a  most  moderate  law  and  was  loudly  called  for  by 
almoSjt  a  duty  to  save  from  palpable  ruin  certain  manufac- 
turesr  which  had  grown  up  during  the  war  and  had  contributed 
in  no  small  degree  to  render  life  tolerable  in  the  United 
States  during  that  time  and  the  period  of  restriction.  To 
leave  them  in  the  lurch,  when  peace  was  made,  would  have 
been  a  measure  of  doubtful  morality,  and  could  hardly  be 
expected  from  a  leading  supporter  of  the  war.  Even  this 
act,  however,  has  been  shown  68  to  have  met  with  much  criti- 
cism in  the  South,  and  it  has  been  said  tha^Calhoun  was  se- 
verely censured  for  his  part  in  the  matter  and  charged  with 
selling  his  State  for  the  Presidency.6^/ 

66  Ante,  pp.  256-261. 

67  Ante,  pp.  183-187. 

68  Ante,  pp.  190,  191. 

68  D.  F.  H.  Houston's  "  Study  of  Nullification  in  South  Carolina,"  p.  5. 
I  have  found  no  evidence  going  nearly  so  far  as  this. 


344  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

,  Jh 

South  Carolina  was,  probably  as  early  as  1816,  opposed 
to  protection,  and  her  course  on  the  bills  of  a  few  years  later 
shows  beyond  doubt  that  she,  at  least,  soon  realized  that 
her  interest  was  against  such  measures,  and  felt  that  she  could 
not  be  a  manufacturing  State.  The  Charleston  "  Memorial  " 
against  the  bill  of  1820  put  this  feature  of  the  matter  in  bold 
relief.  All  these  views  Calhoun  must  have  heard  expressed 
thousands  of  times  by  his  friends  and  associates,  and  the  almost 
unanimous  votes  of  South  Carolina  against  the  later  bills 
are  the  strongest  evidence  that  the  opinions  he  heard  at 
home  were  nearly  all  the  same.  He  was,  of  course,  influ- 
enced by  this,  and  his  opinions  on  protection  —  which  there  is 
no  reason  to  suppose  had  been  strongly  held,  —  soon  show 
the  effect  of  this,  or  of  some  other  cause  of  like  tendency. 

The  very  next  opinion  upon  the  subject  that  we  have  from 
him  is  that  of  opposition  to  the  Baldwin  bill  of  1820,  which  he 
considered  "  as  violent  in  degree  and  altogether  unneces- 
sary." 70  In  this,  he  was  in  exact  agreement  with  South  Caro- 
lina and  the  South  generally,  which  had  voted  against  that 
measure  in  the  House  by  more  than  ten  to  one.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  Baldwin's  proposal  was  brought  in  during 
the  Missouri  struggle,  and  the  rapidly  growing  alignment  of 
the  sections  was  well  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  votes  on 
it  and  the  Missouri  question  were  very  similar.  Again  in 
Calhoun  opposed  ^some  pro-tariff  expressions  contained 


in  the  draft  of  Monroe's  second  inauguraj/  and  they  were 
slightly  modified  to  meet  his  objections.71*/ 

No  actual  expression  from  him  as  to  the  Act  of  1824 
seems  to  have  survived,  but  with  the  history  of  his  earlier 
actions  just  narrated,  it  may  safely  be  assumed  that  Jenkins, 
—  his  biographer  of  1850,  —  was  justified  in  saying  that  he  was 
opposed  to  that  act.  Hayne  and  Calhoun'  s  friends  in  Con- 
gress generally  opposed  the  bill  most  strenuously,  and,  indeed, 
the  whole  South  was  by  that  time  closely  knit  together  on  the 
subject.  By  this  date  they  had  come  to  denounce  a  pro- 

70  Letter  of  Virgil  Maxcy  to  R.  S.  Garnett,  dated  November  16,  1823, 
and  outlining  Calhoun's  views,  "American  Historical  Review,"  Vol.  XII 
(April,  1907),  pp.  600,  601. 

71  Ante,  p.  273. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     345 

tective  tariff  as  unconstitutional  and  were,  moreover,  begin- 
ning to  advance  State  Rights  doctrines  in  their  defense.72 
Calhoun  can  hardly  have  been  untouched  by  all  this,  while  an 
all-sufficient  reason  for  his  silence  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  he  was  a  presidential  candidate  and  hence  desirous  to 
avoid  driving  either  party  from  him. 

Perhaps  another  reason  was  the  factional  struggle  going  on 
at  that  time  in  South  Carolina  between  Judge  Smith  and  Cal- 
houn's  friends.  This  long-lasting  feud  assumed  great  activity 
in  their  legislature  in  December,  1824,  and  culminated  a  year 
later  in  the  passage  of  the  Smith  resolutions  declaring  both 
internal  improvements  and  a  protective  tariff  unconstitutional. 
With  this  contest  long  ramifying  throughout  the  State,  it  would 
perhaps  have  been  awkward  for  Calhoun  to  announce  widely 
his  possibly  rapidly  changing  opinion,  and  it  is  hardly  likely 
that  he  already  at  that  time  regarded  a  protective  tariff  as 
unconstitutional. 

It  is  also  to  be  noted  that  from  as  early  as  1817  down  to 
1828,  Calhoun's  correspondence  shows  him  complaining  of 
the  expenses  he  met,  of  enforced  borrowing,  and  of  the  re- 
duction of  his  income.73  How  much  of  this  was  due  to  the 
financial  troubles,  which  were  at  the  time  so  usual,  and  how 
much  perhaps  to  an  expensive  household  and  to  probable  out- 
lay for  his  political  ambition,74  can,  of  course,  not  be  deter- 
mined, but  he  was  at  least  likely  to  attribute  it  chiefly  to  any 
cause  which  was  visibly  affecting  the  financial  prosperity  of 
his  section;  and  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  immediate  effect 
of  the  tariff  laws  was  to  force  the  Southerner  to  pay  higher 
for  many  of  the  articles  he  bought. 

These  facts  were  doubtless  in  his  mind,  when  toward  the 
end  of  1821,  he  spoke  to  John  Quincy  Adams  of  the  high 
prosperity  of  manufacturers,  while  farm  products  had  greatly 

72Hayne's  speech  summarized  in  Jervey's  "  Hayne,"  pp.  158-167;  Hous- 
ton's "  Nullification,"  pp.  54,  55 ;  Stanwood's  "  Tariff  Controversies,"  Vol. 
I,  pp.  180,  220,  293. 

73  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  132,  180,  206,  207,  213,  216,  236,  264. 

74  It  is  said  that  in  1829  he  gave  a  splendid  dinner  in  Washington  to 
some  eighteen  editors  as  a  means  to  advance  his  claims  to  the  succession 
to  Jackson.    Letter  of  Coleman,  editor  of  the  "  N.  Y.  Evening  Post,"  to 
J.  A.  Hamilton,  printed  in  the  latter's  "  Reminiscences,"  pp.  126,  127: 


346  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

fallen.73  Again,  in  the  latter  part  of  1824, —  when  the  time 
that  was  to  witness  his  completed  change  of  opinion,  was  com- 
ing on  apace, —  he  told  the  same  diarist  that  agriculture  had 
never  been  so  depressed  in  the  South.76 

K-'  Bearing  in  mind  then  these  indications  of  Calhoun's  mental 
/^processes  during  this  general  period,  what  effect  was  the  course 
of  public  affairs,  such  as  has  been  detailed,  likely  to  have  upon 
him,  a  man  born  in  the  South,  knowing  slavery  and  the  negro, 
and  with  all  his  ties  of  affection  and  interest  wrapped  up  in 
that  region  ?  What  could  he  think 7T  when  he  went  home  for 
some  months  of  every  year  and  heard  the  universal  convic- 
tion around  him  that  grave  dangers  to  the  South  were  looming 
up  in  the  development  of  federal  affairs,  that  their  system  of 
slavery  was  becoming  a  subject  of  serious  attack,  that  efforts 
were  making  to  control  their  legislation  on  matters  of  vital 
State  interest,  and  that  the  rapidly  growing  power  of  the 
North  was  aiming  to  exploit  them,  by  tariff  laws  passed  en- 
tirely for  the  latter's  benefit?  c — " 

It  is  conceivable  that  some  human  beings  would  not  have 
been  greatly  influenced  and  changed  by  all  this,  but  nearly 
every  man  in  South  Carolina  was  so  influenced,  and  it  will  be 
found  that  even  those  who  in  a  few  years  absolutely  rejected 
Nullification  were  careful  to  emphasize  their  general  concur- 
rence with  the  South' s  views  as  to  the  tariff  and  the  other 
subjects  in  controversy,  even  while  they  spurned  the  remedy 
proposed. 

fV  It  seems  plain  that  the  whole  tendency  of  the  general  his- 
tory of  the  period  was  to  unite  Calhoun  more  closely  with 
his  section  of  the  Union  and  to  drive  him  almost  irresistibly 
to  take  up  the  position  of  a  defender  of  his  home  and  her  in- 
terests^/And  it  will  soon  be  shown  that  the  general  course 

75 J.  Q.  Adams's  "Memoirs."  Vol.  V,  pp.  410,  411. 

w/Wtf.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  432. 

77  Perhaps  a  partial  answer  is  furnished  by  a  letter  of  August  12,  1827, 
from  him  to  Micah  Sterling,  in  which  he  apologizes  for  the  delay  in 
answering  his  correspondent,  and  then  goes  on:  "The  truth  is,  I  had 
but  little  to  say,  as  the  course  of  politics  is  so  fixed  to  the  South" 
(Italics  mine).  Letter  in  the  collection  of  John  Gribbel,  Esq.,  of  Phila- 
delphia. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  SECTIONAL  HOSTILITY     347 

of  political  events  during  the  next  few  years  did  not  fail  to 
emphasize  still  more  this  tendency,  while  other  causes, —  ap- 
plying especially  to  Calhoun, —  led  him  on  still  further  in  the 
same  direction. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION 

Further  Causes  Leading  to  Calhoun's  Change  —  Randolph's 
Influence  — A  Solid  South  —  Calhoun's  New  Political  Faith 
-—The  Woolens  Bill  — Tariff  Act  of  1828  —  Southern  Out- 
burst —  South  Carolina's  Growing  Isolation  —  Origin  of 
Nullification  —  The  "  Exposition." 

CALHOUN  became  Vice-President  on  March  4,  1825,  and  on 
the  same  day  John  Quincy  Adams  entered  upon  his  ill-fated 
administration.  From  the  very  start  it  seemed  destined  to 
failure.  A  minority  candidate,1  and  yet  elected  by  the  House, 
the  people  felt  that  Adams's  choice  had  an  element  of  unfair- 
ness in  it,  and  to  this  serious  handicap  was  shortly  added  his 
most  unfortunate  selection  as  Secretary  of  State  of  Henry 
Clay,  who  had  never  been  a  political  friend  and  had  yet  very 
recently  by  his  vote  for  Adams  in  the  House  been,  in  effect, 
the  means  of  making  the  latter  President. 

If  even  it  be  admitted  that  there  was  no  understanding2 
between  the  two  men  and  that  the  never-dying  charge  of 
"  bargain  and  corruption "  was  without  actual  basis  to  stand 
upon,  yet  a  taint  necessarily  resulted  from  the  bare  facts.  In- 
tense opposition  sprang  up  at  once,  founded  at  first  on  these 
charges;  but  Adams's  policies  soon  furnished  another  and 

1  Adams  received  but  84  of  the  electoral  votes,  i.e.,  less  than  a  third. 

2  See  Bassett's  "  Jackson,"  I,  368,  369,  where  the  evidence  from  Adams's 
"  Memoirs "  is  well  summed  up,  and  the  conclusion  reached  that  there 
was  a  "  reasonable  understanding."    As  early  as  January  8,  1825,  even  be- 
fore the  election  in  the  House,  it  was  suspected  that  Clay  would  cast  his 
influence  for  Adams  and  then  have  a  seat  in  the  cabinet.    Joel  R.  Poin- 
sett  wrote  on  that  day  from  Washington  to  Joseph  Hopkinson :  "  I  can- 
not think  that  any   such  coalition  can  take  place  between   Mr.   Adams 
and  Mr.  Clay  as  will  bring  the  latter  into  the  cabinet,  nor  will  I  dis- 
guise to  you  that  I  hope  not."    Letter  in  Hopkinson  collection  in  posses- 
sion of  Edward  Hopkinson,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia.    Poinsett  was  then  a 
member  of  the  House. 

348 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  349 

more  substantial  cause  to  those  who  were  united  against  him. 
What  influence  did  all  this  have  on  Calhoun? 

Public  men  do  not  often  look  on  the  characters  of  their 
competitors  in  the  cold  light  of  history,  and  are  very  prone 
to  attribute  dishonest  or  interested  motives.  Calhoun  was\ 
clearly, —  from  the  very  start, —  among  those  who  thought 
there  had  been  an  understanding  between  Adams  and  Clay./' 
He  wrote  in  1828  of  their  union  as  "  a  coalition  forming  a 
most  dangerous  precedent/'  3  and  in  his  later  "  Autobiogra- 
phy "  4  refers  to  the  excitement  caused  when,  at  the  time  of 
the  election  in  the  House,  Clay  gave  his  vote  to  Adams.  This 
was,  of  course,  before  the  appointment  of  Clay  as  Secretary 
of  State,  and  Calhoun  says  that  many  even  then  wanted  to 
organize  an  opposition.  He  discountenanced  this,  he  adds, 
and  advised  awaiting  the  development  of  events  in  order  to 
see  whether  Clay  would  "  place  his  relations  and  conduct  to- 
wards the  administration  of  him  whom  he  had  elected  above 
all  suspicion  .  .  .  but  when  Mr.  Clay  afterward  took  office, 
and  Mr.  Adams  adopted,  in  its  full  extent,  Mr.  Clay's  Ameri- 
can System,  opposition  to  the  administration  from  himself 
[Calhoun]  and  his  friends  followed  as  a  matter  of  course. 
.  .  .  This  opposition,"  he  goes  on,  "  was  greatly  strengthened 
by  the  bold  Federal  and  consolidation  doctrines  avowed  by  Mr. 
Adams  in  his  inaugural  address,  and  by  the  wild  measures  of 
policy  which  he  recommended." 

Probably  the  latter  words  refer  in  part,  at  least,  to  the  Pan- 
ama Congress,  which,  despite  a  certain  glamour  attaching  to 
it,  was  yet  a  measure  of  doubtful  policy  and  soon  promised 
to  lead  to  the  discussion  of  questions  such  as  all  Southerners 
felt  could  not, —  with  safety  to  them, —  be  debated  at  the  pro- 
posed meeting.  Thus,  it  was  natural  enough  that  Calhoun 
should  soon  find  himself  one  of  the  leaders  against  an  ad- 
ministration, which,  while  beyond  doubt  it  advocated  many  of 
the  general  policies  he  had  favored,  yet  carried  them  infinitely 

3  Letter  of  September  8,  1828,  to  Theodore  Lyman,  "Correspondence," 
pp.  267-69,  also  printed  in  "  Proceedings  of  the  Massachusetts  Historical 
Society,"  Vol.  XIX,  pp.  280,  281. 

4  Pp.  29-31.    On  the  early  wish  to  form  an  opposition,  see  also  J.  Q. 
Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  506,  507. 


35o  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

further  than  he  had 'ever  urged,  and  expanded  them  in  direc- 
tions almost  certain  to  be  opposed  by  a  Southerner,  who  had 
observed  the  tendency  of  political  forces  during  the  preceding 
years. 

Once  in  the  opposition,  Calhoun's  tendency  was  necessarily 
to  carp  at  and  obstruct  the  policies  advocated  by  his  successful 
rival.  Such  is  party  government.  His  position  as  a  political 
leader  tended  precisely  as  had  the  general  growth  of  events 
in  recent  years  and  the  consequent  solidifying  of  the  South 
in  self-defense,  to  lead  him  on  to  recast  the  basis  of  his  po- 
litical and  constitutional  beliefs.  He  soon  found  himself  as- 
sociated with  many  who  had  in  the  past  been  his  opponents. 
The  contest  of  1825,  so  he  wrote  in  his  answer  of  May  29, 
1830,  to  Jackson,  "  ended  in  an  entire  change  of  the  political 
elements  of  the  country ;  and  in  the  new  state  of  things  which 
followed,  I  found  myself  acting  with  many  of  the  friends  of 
Mr.  Crawford,  to  whom  I  had  been  recently  opposed,  and 
opposed  to  many  of  my  friends,  with  whom  I  had  till  then  been 
associated."  5 

But  his  actual  change  had  by  no  means  yet  come  about,  and 
in  the  spring  of  1825,  at  a  dinner  given  him  at  Augusta,  he 
x  said  in  his  speech,6  "  No  one  would  reprobate  more  pointedly 
than  myself,  any  concerted  action  between  States,  for  inter- 
ested or  sectional  objects.  I  would  consider  all  such  concert, 
as  against  the  spirit  of  our  constitution."  There  is  nothing 
to  show  why  he  spoke  in  particular  upon  this  point,  but  per- 
haps he  had  reference  to  some  phase  of  the  factional  struggle 
between  himself  and  William  Smith  or  had  in  mind  the  heated 
denunciations  of  the  Tariff  Act  of  1824.  In  a  later  speech,  at 
Abbeville,  on  May  27th  of  the  same  year,  he  dwelt  on  his  past 
course  at  some  length,  making  no  concealment  of  his  general 
support  of  strong  federal  measures,  and  there  seem  to  have 
been  no  consequent  expressions  of  disapproval  from  his  hear- 
ers, and  we  are  told  that  the  "  day  was  spent  in  harmony  and 
rational  hilarity." 

B" Works,"  Vol.  VI,  "Appendix."  p.  373. 
•  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXVIII,  p.  267. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  351 

In  this  speech,7  after  referring  to  the  necessity  of  "  an  en- 
lightened system  of  measures  for  the  security  of  the  coun- 
try," he  told  his  neighbors,  "  I  gave  my  zealous  efforts  in 
favor  of  all  such  measures ;  the  gradual  increase  of  the  navy, 
a  moderate  military  establishment,  properly  organized  and  in- 
structed, a  system  of  fortification  for  the  defence  of  the  coast, 
the  restoration  of  specie  currency,  a  due  protection  of  those 
manufactures  of  the  country  which  had  taken  root  during 
the  period  of  war  and  restrictions;  and  finally  a  system  of 
connecting  the  various  portions  of  the  country  by  a  judicious 
sy stern  of  internal  improvement." 

It  is  surprising  to  find  him  thus, —  as  late  as  1825  and  in 
South  Carolina, —  recalling  attention  to  his  vote  in  favor  of 
the  Tariff  of  1816  and  other  actions  of  his  that  many  had 
thought  too  much  tinged  with  centralization.  The  incident 
seems  to  furnish  positive  proof  that  his  change  had  not  then 
come  about.  I  cannot  but  think,  however,  that  his  letter  of 
July  3,  1824,  to  Robert  S.  Garnett,8  contains  indications  that 
his  mind  was  by  that  date  (a  year  earlier)  somewhat  drawn 
toward  State  Rights,  and  he  was  at  least  anxious  to  show  that 
there  was  nothing  in  his  record  with  which  the  advocates  of 
that  view  could  well  find  fault.  Here  we  touch  upon  self- 
interest.  There  was  no  political  future  in  South  Carolina  for 
the  man  who  did  not  come  to  accept  the  views  of  that  school. 
The  State's  unanimity  was  far  too  great  for  her  long  to  toler- 
ate a  public  servant  who  was  a  tariff  man  and  in  favor  of  those 
centralizing  doctrines  which  recent  years  had  led  her  to  dread. 
Calhoun  was  human,  and  of  course  this  influenced  him. 

He  has  himself  thrown  no  little  light  upon  the  mode  in 
which  his  change  of  opinion  was  brought  about.  When  he 
became  Vice-President,  he  reminds  us  that  he  was  transferred 
from  positions  of  great  labor, —  such  as  he  had  occupied  for 
fifteen  years, —  to  one  of  absolute  ease.  The  duties  of  his  new 
office  were  almost  nothing,  its  labors  for  the  day  ending  al- 

*  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXVIII,  pp.  265-67. 

8  "Calhoun  Correspondence,"  pp.  219,  et  seq.  "Appendix  A"  to  David 
F.  Houston's  "  Critical  Study  of  Nullification  in  South  Carolina,"  pp. 
143-48. 


/ 


352  LIFE, OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

ways  with  the  adjournment,  while  between  sessions  he  had 
absolute  rest.  A  student  by  nature,  he  was  thus  led  to  obser- 
vation and  reflection  upon  public  matters  "  from  the  time  he 
first  took  his  seat.  Questions  relating  to  the  protective  policy 
were  constantly  recurring  in  one  form  or  another,  and  espe- 
cially attracted  his  attention  and  excited  reflection.  He  was 
not  long  in  making  himself  master  of  that  policy  in  all  its 
bearings,  economical  and  political,  and  in  becoming  thoroughly 
satisfied  that  it  was  unconstitutional,  unjust,  unequal,  and 
oppressive  in  its  character  and  tendency,  and  that  it  must,  in 
the  end,  if  it  became  the  established  and  permanent  policy, 
lead  to  the  overthrow  of  our  free  and  popular  system  of  gov- 
ernment." 9 

It  would  be  necessary  to  exercise  caution  in  accepting  too 
closely  this  account,  written  in  1843,  °f  events  happening 
from  fifteen  to  twenty  years  earlier,  but  there  is  other  evidence 
that  his  change  began  about  1825  and  that  it  was,  moreover, 
not  confined  to  the  question  of  the  tariff.  Not  only  did  he  in 
more  than  one  instance  in  subsequent  years  refer  publicly 
and  without  apparent  contradiction  to  that  period  as  the  time 
when  the  views  of  his  later  life  were  assuming  shape  10  but  in 
his  contest  of  1838  with  Webster,  that  gentleman  said  in 
words : 

"When  did  he  announce  himself  a  State  Rights  man?  I 
have  already  said,  Sir,  that  nobody  knew  of  his  claiming  that 
character  until  after  the  commencement  of  1825."  n 

At  what  date  the  change  had  gone  so  far  as  to  lead  him 

9  "  Autobiography,"  p.  34.  »  See,  also,  his  speech  in  the  Senate  on  March 
10,  1838,  printed  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  278,  and  Jenkins's  "  Life,"  p.  160. 

10  In  1837,  at  the  time  when  his  support  of  Van  Buren  was  leading  to 
violent  criticism,  he  wrote  to  a  public  paper :  "  I  live  but  to  carry  out 
the    great    principles    for    which    I    have    been    contending    since    1824." 
Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  LIII,  p.  33.    Again,  on  June  4,  1840,  in  a  letter 
declining  an  invitation  to  address  the  New  York  Democracy  on  July  4, 
he   wrote,    after   outlining   the   political    history   of    the    country:    "For 
sixteen  ^  years   my   efforts   have   been    incessantly   directed   to   counteract 
the  policy  of  that  school  of  politics  to  which  I  stand  opposed,  and  ad- 
vance that  on  which  I  solemnly  believe,  the  salvation  of  our  institutions 
depends."  ..."  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  313-18.     See  almost  the  same  state- 
ment in  another  public  letter   of   his   in   1843,    Niles's   "Register,"  Vol. 
LXIV,  pp.  382,  383- 

"Webster's  "Works"  (ed.  1851),  Vol.  IV,  pp.  500  et  seq.;  516;  also 
see  p.  511. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  353 

conclusively  to  the  beliefs  of  his  later  life  as  to  the  nature 
of  our  government  can,  naturally  enough,  not  be  determined, 
but  it  will  be  shown  to  have  certainly  occurred  before  the  sum- 
mer of  1827.  He  himself  tells  us  that  Madison's  Report 
of  1799  was  a  leading  factor  in  bringing  about  his  change. 
Speaking  of  Madison  on  February  18,  1837,  he  said  in  the 
Senate : 

But  there  was  another  act,  which  would  immortalize  him  in  the 
eye  of  posterity  —  the  profound  and  glorious  views  which  he 
took  of  our  Government  in  his  celebrated  Virginia  report.  In 
his  opinion,  that  was  by  far  the  ablest  document  that  issued 
from  the  pen  of  Mr.  Madison  —  one  from  which  Mr.  Calhoun 
had  derived  more  information  and  a  profounder  insight  into  our 
Government,  than  all  the  other  documents  he  had  penned.12 

It  should  be  remembered  also  that  it  was  in  December  of 
this  same  year,  1825,  that  the  Smith  resolutions  13  were  passed 
by  the  South  Carolina  Legislature.  They  spoke  strongly  for 
State  Rights,  but  were  chiefly  induced  by  the  rivalry  of  leaders, 
were  opposed  by  Calhoun's  friends,  and  at  least  portions  of 
them  must  have  been  bitter  medicine  to  him.  It  is  not  inTH 
possible,  however,  that  the  leisure  of  his  new  office  had  led 
him  during  that  very  same  summer  of  1825  to  begin  his  new 
reading  as  to  the  nature  of  our  Government,  and  that  he  was 
already  secretly  inclined  to  admit  the  truth  of  some  of  their 
assertions  as  to  fundamental  principles.  However  this  may" 
be,  we  shall  find  several  hints  of  a  tendency  of  his  in  that  di- 
rection during  the  Congressional  session  of  1825-26. 

Randolph  was  then  a  member  of  the  Senate,  and  some 
writers  have  thought  that  the  eccentric  Virginian  had  a  large 
share  in  leading  Calhoun  to  the  revision  of  his  beliefs.  Such 
changes  are,  however,  probably  in  general  gradual,  and  it  seems 
to  me  far  more  likely  that  Calhoun  had  by  that  date  in  great 
part  made  his  change,  and  that  it  was  due  to  the  growth  since 
1820,  of  that  opposition  to  slavery,  which  has  been  already 
traced,  and  the  consequent  union  of  Southern  men  in  defense 
of  their  rights.  There  is,  too,  the  evidence  of  one  compe- 

12  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  XIII,  Part  I,  1836-37,  p.  853. 
is  Ante,  pp.  276,  277. 


354  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

tent  observer,  whose  language  seems  to  imply  that  Calhoun 
held  by  1826  the  Southern  view  on  most  leading  questions  and 
that  slavery  was  uppermost  in  his  mind.  During  a  long  dis- 
sertation upon  public  affairs  in  1826,  writes  Josiah  Quincy,14 
Calhoun  "  never  alluded  to  the  subject  of  slavery,  though  it 
was  easy  to  see  that  reference  to  this  interest  shaped  his 
opinions  about  tariffs,  state  rights,  internal  improvements,  and 
other  questions,  with  which,  on  the  surface,  it  had  small 
connection." 

Besides  this,  Randolph's  methods  were  by  no  means  con- 
spicuous for  that  gentle  suavity  that  makes  converts. 

"  Sir,"  he  had  said  on  one  occasion  in  the  House  at  a  recent 
session,  with  evident  reference  in  part  to  Calhoun,  "  the  blind- 
ness, as  it  appears  to  me, —  I  hope  gentlemen  will  pardon  the 
expression, —  with  which  a  certain  portion  of  this  Country, — 
I  allude  in  particular  to  the  seaboard  of  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia, —  has  lent  its  aid  to  increase  the  powers  of  the  gen- 
eral government  on  points,  to  say  the  least,  of  doubtful  con- 
struction fills  me  with  astonishment  and  dismay."  15 

And  again,  referring  to  the  power  of  internal  improvements, 
of  which  Calhoun  was  a  leading  supporter,  he  had  insisted  that, 
if  Congress  possessed  it,  "  they  may  emancipate  every  slave 
in  the  United  States."  This  they  might  do,  he  said,  "  under 
the  war  power,"  or  as  the  general  result  of  all  the  powers  rather 
than  of  any  particular  one.16  And  yet  again  he  told  his 
brethren  of  the  South  "  we  are  the  eel  that  is  being  flayed."  17 

There  is  nothing  to  show  that  Calhoun  heard  or  read  these 
rather  acrid  remarks  concerning  himself  and  his  opinions ;  but 
at  the  session  of  1825-26  Randolph  occupied  a  seat  in  the 
Senate,  of  which  Calhoun  was  then  the  presiding  officer.  The 

14  "Figures   of   the    Past,"   p.   263.    This   was   probably  written   many 
years  afterward,  and  Quincy  possibly  may  have  injected  into  1826  views 
in  reality  enounced  much  later. 

15  Henry  Adams's   "Randolph,"   p.   281.     Calhoun   was   not   strictly   of 
the  seaboard,  but  he  had  extensive  connections  in  Charleston,  and  was 
doubtless  too  conspicuous  not  to  be  among  those  actually  in  Randolph's 
mind. 

18  Annals  of  Congress.  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1823-24. 
Vol.  I,  p.  1308.  Henry  Adams's  "Randolph,"  pp.  276,  277. 

17  Annals  of  Congress,  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  T823-24, 
Vol.  II,  p.  2379,  Henry  Adams's  "  Randolph,"  p.  279. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  355 

latter  was  very  regular  in  attendance  and  beyond  doubt  heard 
many  or  most  of  the  Roanoke  member's  harangues.  It  is 
quite  evident  that  there  was  about  this  time  a  rapprochement 18 
between  the  two  men,  who  had  hardly  been  friends  thereto- 
fore. Thus,  on  February  i,  1826,  Randolph  wrote  to  a 
friend : 19 

Yesterday,  we  had  a  very  interesting  debate,  in  which  I  took 
part.  ...  It  drew  upon  me  a  great  many  handsome  and  nat- 
tering compliments ;  and  from  one  quarter,  my  friend  Benton  (  for 
I  was  on  his  side),  I  believe  sincere.  We  differed  from  the  pre- 
siding officer  upon  what  Mr.  J.  would  call  a  "  speck "  on  the 
political  horizon,  but  it  turned  out  to  be  of  vital  importance  as 
we  probed  it.  It  was  laid  over  for  mature  consideration.  After 
the  debate,  and  while  some  Indian  treaties  were  being  read,  Mr. 
C.  sent  for  me,  and  said,  that  the  question  had  assumed  a  new 
and  important  aspect  —  required  solemn  consideration  and  de- 
cision —  my  views  were  strong  and  important,  &c.  &c.  He  then 
sent  for  Mr.  B.  and  told  him  much  the  same.  He  electioneers 
with  great  assiduity. 

About  a  month  later,  after  a  debate  in  secret  session  on 
Friday,  February  24th,  on  the  question  of  sending  Ministers 
to  Panama,  in  which  Randolph  had  evidently  taken  a  leading 
part,  he  wrote  20  that  he  was  probably  as  accessible  to  flattery 
as  other  men,  and  then  went  on : 

The  Vice-President  has  actually  made  love  to  me.  ...  In  short, 
Friday's  affair  has  been  praised  on  all  hands  in  a  style  that  might 
have  gorged  the  appetite  of  Cicero  himself. 

Again  on  March  2,  the  rambling  Virginian  indulged  in  one 
of  his  long  harangues,  but  scattered  through  it  here  and  there 

18  In  February  1827,  toward  the  end  of  the  session  and  shortly  after 
Randolph's  defeat   for  reelection  to  the   Senate,   Calhoun   asked   him  to 
drive  home  in  his    (Calhoun's)    carriage,  and   Randolph  thought  of  ac- 
cepting.    Garland's  "  Randolph,"  Vol.  II,  p.  285. 

19  Ibid.,  p.  265.    The  debate  concerned  the  nomination  of  Daniel  Bis- 
sell  to  be  a  colonel  of  artillery,  which  was  a  long-standing  controversy 
with  the  Executive,  growing  out  of  an  earlier  act  for  reducing  the  army. 
The  nomination  was  laid  upon  the  table  on  January  31,  and  an  Indian 
treaty  at  once  taken  up.     "  Executive  Journal  of  the  Senate." 

20  Henry  Adams's  "Randolph,"  p.  288.    Garland's  "Randolph,"  pp.  267, 
268. 


356  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

true  flashes  of  genius.  Referring  to  emancipation  and  the 
opinion  of  some  that  slavery  should  never  be  brought  into 
public  notice,  he  said  in  the  Senate:21 

Sir  ...  I  differ  from  them  toto  ccslo.  Sir,  it  is  a  thing  which 
cannot  be  hid  —  it  is  not  a  dry  rot  which  you  can  cover  with  the 
carpet,  until  the  house  tumbles  about  your  ears  —  you  might  as 
well  try  to  hide  a  volcano  in  full  operation  —  it  cannot  be  hid  — 
it  is  a  cancer  in  your  face,  and  must  be  treated  secundum  artem. 
...  A  small  danger  menacing  an  inestimable  object,  is  of  more 
importance  in  the  eyes  of  a  wise  man,  than  the  greatest  danger 
which  can  possibly  threaten  anv  object  of  minor  consequence. 
The  question  before  us  is,  is  this  an  object  of  inestimable  con- 
sequence? I  do  not  put  the  question  to  you,  sir.  I  know  what 
your  answer  will  be.  I  know  what  will  be  the  answer  of  every 
husband,  father,  son  and  brother,  throughout  the  Southern  States ; 
I  know  that  on  this  depends  the  honor  of  every  matron  and 
maiden  .  .  .  between  the  Ohio  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  [All 
my  early  feelings  were  against  slavery  and  I  was  a  member  of  the 
Colonization  Society  but  never  had  much  faith  in  it.  They 
had  two  languages.  Affecting  to  be  only  for  abolition  of  the 
Slave  Trade],  they  had  another  object  — they  had  an  object  in 
view,  which  now  they  have  the  courage  to  declare,  for  which 
they  have  very  lately  united  themselves  into  an  anti-slavery  so- 
ciety. .  .  .  The  Crusades  .  .  .  were  incomparably  more  worthy, 
more  desirable,  in  the  object,  more  wise  in  the  means  taken  to 
attain  it,  than  this  modern  black  crusade.  ...  I  may  be  told  that 
the  principles  of  these  South  American  States  are  the  princi- 
ples that  were  of  high  authority  on  another  question  —  the  Mis- 
souri question  —  are  the  principles  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence. .  .  .  These  principles,  pushed  to  their  extreme  con- 
sequences —  that  all  men  are  born  free  and  equal  —  I  can  never 
assent  to.  ...  [Let  slavery  alone  and]  the  disease  will  run  its 
course  —  it  has  run  its  course  in  the  Northern  States ;  it  is  begin- 
ning to  run  its  course  in  Maryland.  The  natural  death  of  slavery 
is  the  unprofitableness  of  its  most  expensive  labor.  I  am  con- 
tent to  act  the  part  of  Cassandra,  to  lift  up  my  voice,  whether 
it  be  heeded,  or  heard  only  to  be  disregarded,  until  too  late.  .  .  . 

Much  of  this  was  very  striking  and  seems  to-day  to  have 

21  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.   II,   Part  I,   1825-26    (Nineteenth   Con- 
gress, First  Session),  pp.  117-132. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  357 

contained  almost  a  note  of  prophecy,  but  would  hardly  have 
had  much  effect  then  except  on  a  mind  ripened  for  its  accept- 
ance by  some  cause.  If  uttered  prior  to  the  Missouri  contest 
and  the  growing  opposition  to  slavery,  almost  every  one  in 
the  country  would  have  regarded  it  as  senseless  braying  and 
the  author  as  a  mere  prophet  of  ill.  I  cannot  but  think  that 
such  would  have  been  conspicuously  its  effect  on  the  Calhoun 
of  1810-19,  and  that  therefore  we  must  suppose  that  a  deep 
impression  had  been  made  on  him  between  1820  and  1825. 
But  with  his  mind  prepared  by  the  events  of  that  time,  and  feel- 
ing the  evident  struggle  between  the  North  and  South  looming 
up  as  a  nightmare  of  danger  to  his  waning  section,  the  words 
of  Randolph  of  course  contributed  their  part  to  convince  him 
of  the  necessity  to  his  home  of  the  new  views  that  had  already 
broken  in  upon  him. 

During  the  session  of  1825-26,  too,  occurred  the  dispute 
as  to  whether  Calhoun  should  not,  as  presiding  officer,  have 
called  Randolph  to  order  for  some  of  his  attacks  upon  Adams 
and  Clay,  and  in  the  spring  and  summer  of  1826  "  Patrick 
Henry  "  and  "  Onslow  "  had  their  wordy  duel.  The  dispute 
was  very  acrimonious  and  a  subject  much  noticed  by  the 
public.  At  a  dinner  to  Calhoun  at  Pendleton  in  the  autumn, 
the  toast  to  him  compared  "  his  protection  of  liberty's  citadel, 
the  freedom  of  debate  "  with  his  conduct  during  the  War  of 

I8l2.22 

Nothing  seems  to  have  survived  to  show  Calhoun's  occupa- 
tion or  special  interests  during  the  latter  part  of  1826,  after 
the  adjournment  of  Congress  on  May  22nd,  but  matters  of 
vital  moment  to  us  here  occurred  during  the  session  of  1826-27, 
and  there  is  positive  proof  that  during  the  year  1827  —  at  a 
date  when  his  Presidential  hopes  must  still  have  been  high 
—  he  had  entirely  changed  his  views  and  had  spoken  in  a 
way  to  show  clearly  that  State  Rights  and  the  Southern  views 
in  general  had  come  to  be  cardinal  points  of  his  political 
faith. 

It  was  at  this  session  of  1826-27  that  the  Woolens  Bill, 
putting  still  higher  duties  on  woolen  goods,  was  introduced 
22Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XXXI  (October  7,  1826),  pp.  94,  95- 


358  •  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

and  passed  by  the  House.  In  the  Senate  it  was  known  that 
the  vote  on  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  would  be  very  close, 
and  Van  Buren  is  said  to  have  cunningly  devised  the  plan  of 
bringing  about  a  tie,  so  as  to  force  Calhoun  to  give  the  casting 
vote  and  thus  incur  the  odium  of  whichever  course  he  might 
take.  Van  Buren  was  actually  present  when  the  vote  was 
taken,  but  remained  silent,  and  the  vote  was  even.23  Calhoun 
at  once  voted  Aye,  and  thus  the  bill  was  shelved  and  lost  for 
that  session  and  Calhoun  doubtless  a  marked  and  detested  man 
in  all  tariff  circles. 

Probably  he  was  quite  as  much  an  object  of  admiration 
throughout  the  South,  where  there  was  at  once  an  outburst 
against  the  attempted  increase.  Georgia,  North  Carolina,  and 
Alabama  all  passed  resolutions,24  the  general  tenor  of  which 
was  to  recommend  resistance,  and  in  South  Carolina  numerous 
meetings  of  protest  were  called.  The  most  conspicuous  of 
these  was  held  in  Columbia  on  July  2nd,  was  presided  over 
by  the  Governor;  and  here  it  was  that  Cooper  made  his 
well-known  address,25  in  which  he  said  that  they  would  "  ere- 
long, be  forced  to  calculate  the  value  of  our  Union."  About 
the  same  time,  too,  was  printed  in  the  Charleston  Mercury  a 
series  of  articles  called  "  The  Crisis,"  by  "  Brutus,"  or  Robert 
J.  Turnbull,26  in  which  State  Rights  doctrines  of  high  flavor, 
but  by  no  means  the  real  Nullification  of  1832-33,  were  ad- 
vocated. 

23  Stanwood's  "  Tariff  Controversies,"  Vol.  I,  p.  258. 
2* "  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,"  by  Herman  V.  Ames,  pp. 
146-151. 

25  Niles's    "  Register "    of    September   8,    1827,    quoted    in    McMaster's 
"  United  States,"  Vol.  V,  pp.  248,  249 ;  "  South  Carolina  during  Nullifica- 
tion," by  Gaillard  Hunt,  in  "Political  Science  Quarterly,"  Vol.  VI  (1891), 
p.  238. 

26  "  The  Crisis  "  is  also  to  be  found  in  pamphlet  form.    It  was  answered 
at  great  length  by  "  Hamilton  "  in  the  Charleston  "  Courier,"  in  a  series 
of  at  least  28  letters,  appearing  from  November  I,  1827,  to  February  12, 
1828.    It    has   been   thought   that   Turnbull    was   the    real    originator    of 
Nullification,  but  his  papers  did  not  get  any  nearer  to  it  than  is  shown 
in   the  text,   and   one   might  with    far   greater   truth   say   that    Calhoun 
adopted   the   doctrine    from   Troup's    Georgia   contest   or   from   the   still 
earlier   Massachusetts   cases.    All   of   these   and    several   other   instances 

.  contributed  to  the  growth  of  Nullification,  while  Turnbull  added  nothing. 
Calhoun  beyond  question  formulated  and  created  the  doctrine  of  1832-33. 
The  co-temporary  "Book  of  Nullification"  (Henry  D.  Capers's  "Life 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  359 

"  I  do  not  admit,"  wrote  the  author,  with  some  of  the 
essentials  of  both  Secession  and  Nullification  floating  in  his 
mind,  as  they  had  floated  in  many  minds  throughout  the  coun- 
try at  various  times  in  the  past,  "  the  monstrous  doctrine  that 
a  State  can  rebel."  And  he  urged  South  Carolina  to  will  that 
she  would  not  submit  to  the  tariff.  How  far  he  was  from  any 
real  understanding  of  orthodox  Nullification  is  shown,  when 
he  writes :  "  To  talk  of  resistance  to  the  tariff  by  all  consti- 
tutional means,  is  to  talk  to  no  purpose.  ...  It  is  to  talk  of 
submission,  not  resistance"  And  the  following  may  serve 
as  a  sample  of  his  heat  "  In  all  cases  where  slavery  is  pro- 
posed to  be  brought  into  discussion,  let  us  say  distinctly  to 
Congress  *  Hands  off!  —  Mind  your  own  business.'  If  this 
fails,  let  us  separate.  It  is  not  a  case  for  reasoning  or  for 
negotiation.  It  must  be  a  ivord  and  a  blow."  27 

Similar  views  were  no  doubt  held  at  that  time  by  many 
throughout  the  South,  and  Calhoun's  letters  during  the  sum- 
mer show  conclusively  that,  barring  the  violence,  he  was  in 
pretty  full  unison  with  these  wide-spread  opinions.  He  wrote 
his  intimates  that  our  system,  had  reached  a  vital  point  in  its 
progress,  the  magnitude  of  which  was  realized  by  few.  The 
policies  advocated  had  greatly  inflamed  the  public  mind,  he 
went  on,  and  among  them  was  "  one,  in  particular,  that,  in 
my  opinion,  even  threatens  danger  to  the  Union,  I  mean  that 
of  arraying  the  great  geographical  interests  of  the  Union 
against  one  another  ...  the  South  has  commenced  remon- 
strating against  this  unjust  and  oppressive  attempt  to  sacrifice 
their  interest  [the  Woolens  Bill  and  the  proposed  Harrisburg 
Convention] ;  and,  I  do  trust,  that  they  will  not  be  provoked 
to  step  beyond  strict  constitutional  remedies.  .  .  ."  28 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether  these  last  words  in- 
dicate that  State  Interposition  or  Veto,  as  he  called  it  a  year 
later,  had  already  found  lodgment  in  his  mind,  under  the  influ- 

of  C.  G.  Memminger,"  "Appendix,"  p.  579)   has  it  that  Calhoun  wrote 
letters  to  Turnbull  and  made  him  believe  in  Nullification. 

27  "  Essays/'  No.  31,  p.  151,  and  No.  27,  p.  137. 

28  Letters  of  August  26,  to  his  brother-in-law,  James  Edward  Calhoun, 
and  of  July  23,  1827,  to  Christopher  Van  Deventer.     "  Correspondence," 
pp.  245,  246,  247-251. 


360  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

cnce  of  Madison's  Report,  but  one  can  only  draw  one's  own 
conclusions  upon  this  point.  To  me,  it  seems  difficult  to 
attach  any  other  actual  meaning  to  them,  when  used,  as  they 
were,  by  a  statesman,  and  presumably  with  some  view  to 
effective  action.  Remonstrance  and  resolution  were  already  by 
that  time  about  exhausted. 

Again,  there  is  nothing  to  show  whether  the  South  Carolina 
Legislative  Resolutions29  of  that  year  reflect  in  part  his 
mind;  but  they  at  least  breathe  in  places  those  views  as  to 
the  nature  of  our  government,  of  which  he  was  henceforth 
the  greatest  defender.  "The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,"  so  ran  the  report  of  the  Senate  Committee,  "is  not 
a  compact  between  the  people  of  the  United  States  at  large 
with  each  other,  but  is  the  result  of  a  compact  originally 
formed  between  the  people  of  thirteen  separate  and  indepen- 
dent sovereignties,  to  produce  and  constitute  a  new  form  of 
government,"  and  the  first  resolution  embodied  this  idea,  which 
is  intensely  Calhoun-like,  though  of  far  earlier  origin,  so  far  as 
its  main  idea  is  concerned. 

The  second  resolution  was  to  the  effect  that  the  tariff 
laws,  "  the  object  of  which  is  not  the  raising  of  revenue  or 
the  regulation  of  foreign  commerce  but  the  promotion  of 
domestic  manufactures,  are  violations  of  the  Constitution  in 
its  spirit  and  ought  to  be  repealed,"  while  the  third,  and 
only  other  one  important  to  us  here,  put  the  same  ban  of 
unconstitutionality  on  laws  for  building  roads  and  canals  and 
was  thus  hardly  likely  to  be  altogether  pleasing  to  Calhoun. 

Whether  or  not  he  had  a  hand  in  drawing  these  resolutions, 
it  is  at  least  amply  clear  30  that  by  their  date  he  had  made 

29  South   Carolina   Acts,   &c.,    1827,   pp.   68,   69.    John   Ramsay,    S.    D. 
Miller,  H.  Deas,  Alfred  Huger,  D.  R.  Evans,  W.  B.  Seabrook,  and  Catlet 
Conner  constituted  the  Senate  Committee,  and  their  report  was  presented 
by  Ramsay.    Mr.   Hunt    ("Calhoun,"  p.  80),  says  that  the  report  was 
written  by  Turnbull.    It  and  the  resolutions  smack  far  more  of  Nulli- 
fication than  did  the  earlier  "  Crisis." 

30  Mr.  Hunt   ("Calhoun,"  p.  68)   thinks  that  Calhoun's  letter  of  July 
10,  1828,  shows  that  even  as  late  as  its  date  he  had  not  formulated  Nulli- 
fication.   The  letter  is  addressed  to  Monroe,  and  its  material  parts,  after 
referring  to  the  excitement  in  the   South  over  the  tariff  and  the  un- 
equal operation  of  the  system  in  different  parts  of  the  country:  are  "I 
greatly  fear,  that  the  weak  part  of  our  system  will  be  found  to  consist  in 
the  fact  that  in  a  country  of  such  vast  extent  and  diversity  of  interest, 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  361 

his  change  and  had  become  fully  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
the  State  Rights  theories.  His  quoted  letters  seem  almost  to 
prove  this,  and  complete  demonstration  is  added  by  a  letter 
of  his  close  political  friend,  Judge  John  McLean,  dated  Sep- 
tember 25,  1831,  to  Samuel  L.  Gouverneur,31  in  regard  to  the 
then  approaching  Presidential  contest  of  1832-33.  McLean 
reviews  the  whole  field,  including  his  own  chances  as  the  anti- 
Masonic  candidate  and  says : 

Our  friend  Calhoun  is  gone,  I  fear,  forever.  For  four  years 
past  he  has  been  infatuated,  with  his  southern  doctrines.  In  him 
they  originated.  He  has  shown  a  most  extraordinary  infatuation 
in  the  prosecution  of  this  subject.  I  have  no  doubt,  he  believed, 
that  he  could  consolidate  the  South,  carry  Pennsylvania,  and 
bring  over  the  West.  He  will  not  sustain  himself  any  where,  not 
even  in  his  own  state.  In  the  west,  the  doctrine  is  as  unpopular, 
and  I  believe  more  so,  than  the  principles  of  the  Hartford  con- 
vention. 

This  language  is,  of  course,  not  to  be  interpreted  as  meaning 
four  years  to  a  day  or  a  month;  and  if  Calhoun  about  four 
years  preceding  September  25,  1831,  spoke  of  his  new  beliefs 
with  sufficient  clearness  for  McLean  to  be  able  to  write  those 
words,  it  is  amply  apparent  that  for  a  considerable  number  of 

many  of  the  laws  will  be  found  to  act  very  unequally,  and  that  some  por- 
tions of  the  country  may  be  enriched  by  legislation  at  the  expense  of 
others.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  have  no  other  check  against  abuses,  but 
such  as  grow  out  of  responsibility,  or  election,  and  while  this  is  an 
effectual  check,  where  the  law  acts  equally  on  all,  it  is  none  in  the  case 
of  the  unequal  action  to  which  I  refer."  But  I  cannot  think  this  one 
sentence  in  a  single  private  letter  can  be  held  to  have  any  such  broad 
effect  and  to  contradict  what  he  says  in  the  "  Autobiography "  of  his 
course  during  that  summer,  later  speeches  of  his  own,  the  direct  words 
of  McLean,  quoted  infra  in  the  text,  and  the  many  other  indications  I 
have  cited.  He  probably  had  in  mind  the  known  and  established  checks, 
and  the  very  next  sentence  refers  clearly  to  some  other  remedy :  "  One 
thing  seems  to  me  certain,  that  the  system  is  getting  wrong  and  if  a  speedy 
and  effective  remedy  be  not  applied  a  shock  at  no  long  interval  may  be 
expected."  Did  not  these  words  mean  Nullification,  in  his  mind?  But 
that  doctrine  had  not  yet  been  even  promulgated,  so  that  he  would  have 
had  to  write  a  treatise  to  put  the  high  prerogative  remedy  before  his 
far  from  sympathetic  correspondent. 

81  Monroe  Papers  in  Library  of  Congress.  Dr.  Schouler  was,  I  think, 
the  first  to  call  attention  to  this  letter.  "History  of  United  States," 
Vol.  IV,  p.  442.  I  have  a  copy  of  it. 


UCC11    L 

/  Vit  i 

/     Sfcuth 


362  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

months,  and  probably  for  one  or  more  years,  the  new  light  had 
b^en  breaking  in  upon  him. 

is  quite  possible  that  the  desire  for  a  political  career  in 
Carolina  may  have  been  one  of  the  more  or  less  con- 
scious causes  leading  him  to  take  up  and  develop  the  views 
popular  at  home,  but  how  it  is  conceivable,  as  is  often  believed, 
that  his  burning  ambition  to  be  President  led  him  to  this  fate- 
ful step  is  hard  to  conceive.  If  he  really  made  the  awful 
blunder  of  foresight  that  McLean  attributes  to  him,  it  was 
probably  the  w,orst  in  his  long  career,  and  later  pages  will 
show,  too,  that  in  a  few  years  there  was  quite  a  period  during 
which  those  very  flames  of  Presidential  aspiration  led  him  in 
the  opposite  directionf^so  that  he  hesitated  to  follow  with 
his  associates  and  take  the  cold  plunge  into  sectionalism,  which 
visibly  meant  the  abandonment,  for  a  time  at  least,  of  that 
fabric  of  hope  that  he  had  built  up  at  such  pains  and  that 
had  such  siren  attraction  for  him. 

Events  of  vast  moment  in  the  history  of  Calhoun,  as  well  as 
of  the  United  States,  were  now  hurrying  on  apace.  The 
tariff  interests  did  not  rest  with  the  defeat  of  the  Woolens 
Bill  of  1827,  and  evidently  thought  the  time  of  an  approach- 
ing Presidential  election  opportune  for  renewed  efforts.  Ac- 
cordingly, during  the  summer  a  Tariff  Convention  met  at  Har- 
risburg,  Pennsylvania.  About  one  hundred  delegates  attended, 
representing  the  woolen  and  various  other  interests,  and  added 
their  united  voices  to  the  agitation  for  higher  rates  on  many 
articles.  All  this  was  of  course  watched  with  anxiety  at  the 
South 32  and  contributed  beyond  doubt  to  the  temper  shown 
by  Cooper  and  other  hotheads  in  that  quarter  of  the  Union. 

When  Congress  met  in  December  of  1827,  some  have 
thought  there  was  evident  for  a  time  a  desire  on  the  part  of 
leaders  to  delay  the  subject  and,  at  least,  the  taking  of  testi- 
mony on  certain  points  was  insisted  upon  by  them,  but  on 
January  31,  the  fateful  "  Bill  of  Abominations," — as  it  was 
dubbed 3S  by  Senator  Samuel  Smith  of  Maryland,  a  pro-tariff 

82  Calhoun  wrote  of  the  agitation  to  his  brother-in-law  on  August  26, 
1827,  with  marked  anxiety.    "Correspondence,"  pp.  250,  251. 

83  Webster  in  speech  in  "Works"  (edition  of  1851),  Vol.  II,  pp.  237, 
240.    I  do  not  think  it  is  always  borne  in  mind  that  this  term  originated 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  363 

man, —  was  brought  in.  It  was  a  strange  medley,  beyond 
question  far  more  due  to  political  manoeuvering  than  to  the 
public  needs.  The  rates  contained  were  in  general  very  high, 
but  the  exact  parentage  of  the  measure  is  hard  to  ascertain. 
The  latest  writer  on  the  subject,  an  advocate  of  protection,  says 
that  nothing  could  be  more  difficult  than  to  free  this  law  from 
the  mystery  surrounding  it.  A  committee  of  the  House,  he 
goes  on,  a  majority  of  which  was  against  protection,  reports 
a  bill  following  most  of  the  details  of  the  Harrisburg  Con- 
vention plan,  but  rejecting  their  proposal  as  to  woolen  goods, 
while  iron,  hemp,  flax,  molasses,  spirits,  and  cotton  prints  were 
given  perhaps  more  than  ample  protection.34 

Both  the  Adams  and  Jackson  following  charged  that  the 
bill  originated  in  the  evil  design  of  the  other  to  win  the  elec- 
tion by  driving  its  opponents  into  a  position  of  great  party 
difficulty.  On  the  whole  it  is  fairly  clear  that  the  plan  of 
a  new  law  containing  still  higher  rates,  urged  by  the  Harris- 
burg  Convention  and  the  protectionists  in  general,  had  been 
originated  by  the  supporters  of  Adams  with  the  hope  of  de- 
feating Jackson.  The  latter,  whose  support  was  very  strong 
in  some  highly  protective  as  well  as  in  some  free  trade  sec- 
tions, could  ill  afford  to  let  his  friends  vote  against  such 
a  measure  and  thereby  imperil  his  chances  in  Pennsylvania 
and  other  strong  Tariff  States.  But  Jackson's  managers  were 
not  to  be  caught  by  any  such  trap.  They  had  the  upper  hand 
in  Congress;  and  accordingly  not  only  did  his  friends  in  the 
end  draw  the  bill  but  they  controlled  it  as  well  and  numbers  of 
his  staunch  supporters  voted  in  its  favor.  Perhaps  honors 
were  easy,  and  neither  side  was  overly  clean.35 

with  the  friends  of  protection  and  had  reference  chiefly  to  some  high 
rates  very  much  opposed  in  the  Eastern  States.  It  was,  however,  fully 
adopted  by  the  Southerners,  but  in  their  mouths  referred  to  quite  other 
provisions. 

34  Stanwood's  "Tariff  Controversies,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  270,  271.  See  also 
Taussig's  "  Tariff  History,"  pp.  84-100,  and  Jenkins's  "  Silas  Wright,"  pp. 
53-60. 

S5Calhoun  said  in  his  speech  to  repeal  the  Force  Bill  ("Works,"  Vol. 
II,  pp.  216,  396)  that  the  Presidential  election  of  1828  soon  ran  off  onto 
the  tariff  question,  and  those  in  power  sought  to  take  it  up  as  theirs, 
while  some  of  our  allies  were  led  to  zeal  in  the  same  direction.  Benton's 
opinion  was  much  the  same.  Meigs's  "  Benton,"  pp.  251,  253. 


364  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Mallary,  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  Manufactures 
was  opposed  to  the  plan  agreed  upon  by  his  associates,  and 
Silas  Wright  drew  the  bill.36  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
it  was  purposely  framed  with  the  view  of  being  so  distasteful 
to  New  England  that  her  members  would  vote  against  it  and 
thus  insure  defeat.  This  was,  indeed,  admitted  on  the  floor 
both  then  and  later.37  Her  manufactured  goods  were  accord- 
ingly given  little  protection,  while  articles  she  bought  for  con- 
sumption or  as  raw  materials  for  her  mills,  were  taxed 
high. 

As  a  further  step  towards  the  defeat  of  the  bill,  assurances 
were, —  according  to  Calhoun's  assertion  in  i837,38 —  in  effect 
given  by  Wright  to  members  from  the  South  that  amend- 
ments would  not  be  permitted,  and  hence  the  Southerners  per- 
sistently voted  even  against  reductions,  in  order  to  preserve 
a  united  front  and  keep  the  bill  as  unpalatable  to  New  Eng- 
land as  possible.  One  of  the  Southern  members  said  39  later 
that  they  "  determined  to  put  such  ingredients  in  the  chalice 
as  would  poison  the  monster.  .  .  .  This  is  what  is  sometimes 
called  '  fighting  the  devil  with  fire.' '  They  evidently  counted 
with  absolute  confidence  on  New  England's  voting  solidly 
against  the  bill.  Wright  at  a  later  day  admitted  having  given 
the  assurances,  but  said  he  had  done  "  all  he  could  to  unde- 
ceive [the  Southern  members],  but  he  could  not  succeed. 
He  told  them;  repeatedly  that  the  New  Englanders  would  end 
by  voting  for  it  and  the  bill  pass."  40 

3«  John  S.  Jenkins's  "  Life  of  Silas  Wright,"  pp.  57-62.  R.  H.  Giilet's 
"Life  and  Times  of  Silas  Wright,"  pp.  127,  130. 

*T  Thos.  R.  Mitchell  in  C9ngressional  Debates,  Vol.  IV,  Part  II,  Twen- 
tieth Congress,  First  Session  (1827-28),  p.  2344.  McDuffie,  in  "Con- 
gressional Globe,"  Twenty-Eighth  Congress,  First  Session  (1843-44), 
"  Appendix,"  p.  747,  cited  in  Houston's  "  Nullification,"  pp.  34,  35. 

38  Speech  in  Senate  on  February  23,  1837,  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  47-53, 
or  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  862,  870.  See  also  "Autobiog- 
raphy," pp.  32,  33,  and  letters  of  October  23rd  and  December  4th,  1843, 
in  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  550,  552. 

19  McDuffie  in  speech  of  1843,  cited  immediately  above. 

40  Speech  in  Senate  on  February  23,  1837,  in  answer  to  Calhoun's  charge 
of  bad  faith,  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  XIII,  Part  I  (1836-37),  p.  921. 
See  also  Jenkins's  "  Wright,"  pp.  53-60.  Van  Buren  and  some  few  others 
did  vote  for  the  amendments  wanted  by  New  England,  so  that  Calhoun 
had  cause  of  complaint;  but  there  seems  to  be  no  proof  that  Wright 
was  implicated  in  the  change. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  365 

The  Southerners  seem  at  first  to  have  considered41  whether 
their  best  course  would  be  to  unite  with  the  New  Englanders 
and  amend  the  bill  (presumably  by  reductions  in  the  high 
rates  obnoxious  to  her,  and  possibly  by  moderate  raises  on 
her  manufactured  goods),  so  as  to  make  it  more  palatable;  but 
this  course  would  have  fixed  the  system  on  the  country  more 
solidly  than  ever,  so  they  concluded  to  rest  on  the  assurances 
given.  The  risk  then  run  was  that  the  East  might  unite, — • 
as,  in  the  event,  it  did, —  at  a  later  stage  with  the  Middle  and 
Western  States  in  favor  of  amendments  acceptable  to  both 
and  thus  secure  the  passage  of  a  law.  Calhoun  evidently  had 
a  large  part  in  these  not-inspiring  manceuvers  resorted  to  un- 
der the  stress  of  great  difficulties.  Warren  R.  Davis  of  South 
Carolina,  his  close  friend,  was  a  member  of  the  committee 
with  Wright,  and  was  evidently  the  actual  intermediary  for 
the  South.42 

The  bill  was,  beyond  all  doubt,  very  largely, —  or  chiefly, — 
intended  for  protection  and  not  for  revenue,  and  at  a  late 
stage  in  the  House,  Drayton  of  South  Carolina  and  others 
moved  to  insert  in  the  title  a  declaration  of  this  purpose,  of 
course  wth  the  design  of  raising  judicially  the  question  of  the 
constitutionality  of  protection;  but  the  proposed  amendments 
were  all  at  once  cut  out  by  the  previous  question.  The  bill, 
then,  passed  in  the  House,  April  22,  by  105  Yeas  to  94  Nays. 
Out  of  58  votes  from  seven  Southern  States,  there  were  49 
Nays,  3  Yeas  from  Virginia,  and  6  members  not  voting.43 

In  the  Senate,  so  Calhoun  tells  us  in  the  already  quoted 
speech  of  1837,  the  New  England  members  were  so  generally 
opposed  to  the  bill  that  the  Southerners 

.  .  .  Anticipated  with  confidence  and  joy  that  the  bill  would  be 
defeated,  and  the  whole  system  overthrown  by  the  shock.  Our 
hopes  were  soon  blasted.  A  certain  individual  [Van  Buren], 

"Calhoun's   "Works,"  Vol.   Ill,  pp.  47-53- 

42  Wright's  Speech  of  February  23,  1837,  referred  to  above. 

43  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  IV,  Part  II,  1827-28,  pp.  2471,  2472.    See 
the  Charleston  "  Courier  "of  April  30,  1828.     Calhoun  wrote  in  his  post- 
humous "Discourse  on  the  Constitution,"  etc.     ("Works,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  364, 
365)  that  the  bill  of  1828  was  avowedly  for  protection,  and  was  the  first 
instance  in  which  this  purpose  was  avowed. 


366  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

then  a  Senator  but  recently  elected  to  the  highest  office  in  the 
Union,  was  observed  to  assume  a  mysterious  air  in  relation  to  the 
bill,  very  little  in  accordance  with  what,  there  was  every  reason 
to  believe,  would  have  been  his  course.  The  mystery  was  ex- 
plained when  the  bill  came  up  to  be  acted  upon.  I  will  not  give 
in  detail  his  course.  It  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  instead  of  re- 
sisting amendments,  as  we  had  a  right  to  expect,  he  voted  for  all 
which  were  necessary  to  secure  the  votes  of  New  England;  par- 
ticularly the  amendments  to  raise  the  duties  on  woolens  which 
were  known  to  be  essential  for  that  purpose.  All  these  amend- 
ments, with  one  or  two  exceptions,  were  carried  by  his  votes,  as 
appears  from  the  journal,  now  on  my  table,  which  I  have  re- 
cently examined.  If  his  name  had  been  recorded  on  the  opposite 
side,  they  would  have  been  lost,  and  with  them  the  bill  itself. 
He  held,  at  this  critical  juncture,  the  fate  of  the  country  in  his 
hands. 

At  one  time  it  was  thought  that  the  friends  of  the  adminis- 
tration would  arrange  to  make  a  tie  in  the  Senate,  so  as  to  force 
Calhoun  to  vote  against  the  measure,  and  thus  probably  defeat 
the  Jackson  ticket.  Calhoun  was  then  urged  by  his  friends  to 
absent  himself  and  escape  the  difficulty  for  himself  and  Jack- 
son; and  he  was  reminded  that,  if  he  were  absent  and  there 
was  a  tie,  the  bill  would  be  equally  defeated.  But  he  promptly 
refused  and  added  that  his  vote  against  the  bill  "  should  not 
hurt  General  Jackson's  election,  for  in  that  event  his  name 
should  be  withdrawn  from  the  ticket  as  Vice-President."44 

Little  share  was  taken  by  the  South  in  the  progress  of  the 
bill  through  either  branch.  In  the  House,  McDuffie  said  45 
that  their  members  had  maintained  "  almost  without  excep- 
tion, a  profound  but  expressive  silence,"  while  in  the  Senate 
Hayne  proclaimed  that  the  measure  could  assume  no  shape 
to  make  it  acceptable  to  him,  and  added  that  "with  these 
views,  he  had  determined  to  make  no  motion  to  amend  the  bill 
in  any  respect  whatever."  46  Finally,  when  the  contingency 

44  "  Autobiography,"  p.  34. 

45  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  IV,  Part  II,  pp.  1827-28,  p.  2382.    Mc- 
Duffie himself,  however,  and  Hamilton  and  Martin  did  speak  against  the 
bill  in  the  end,—  shortly  before  the  final  vote, 

46  Ibid.,  p.  770. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  367 

feared  by  the  South  had  occurred  and  the  bill  had  been  suf- 
ficiently amended,  it  passed  the  Senate  on  May  13  by  26  to  21, 
and  Hayne  entered  "  a  solemn  protest  against  it  as  a  partial, 
unjust,  and  unconstitutional  measure."  47  The  Senators  from 
the  Southern  States  voted  Nay  by  an  overwhelming  majority. 
The  bill  was  signed  by  Adams  on  May  19. 

There  was  at  once  among  the  Southerners  an  outburst 
against  the  "  Bill  of  Abominations."  A  few  days  after  its 
passage  two  meetings  of  the  South  Carolina  members  of  Con- 
gress were  held  at  Hayne's  home  in  Washington.  Anti-tariff 
men  from  other  States  had  also  been  sounded,  and  some  sup- 
port found  among  them ;  but  the  difference  of  opinion  was  so 
great  that  they  were  not  asked  to  attend. 

One  suggestion  made  at  these  meetings  was  to  spread  a  pro- 
test on  the  records  of  Congress,  and  there  was  shown  "  a  high 
degree  of  excitement  at  this  new  act  of  injustice  against  our 
constituents  which  had  been  marked  by  circumstances  of  un- 
kindness,  not  to  say  bad  faith,  on  the  part  of  some  of  our  po- 
litical friends,  which  filled  us  with  indignation  and  dismay. 
In  the  course  of  a  very  animated  conversation,"  Hamilton  said 
that,  as  soon  as  the  bill  was  engrossed,  he  had  decided  to  go 
home,  resign  his  commission,  and  explain  himself  to  his  con- 
stituents. To  this  McDuffie  added  his  opinion  that  persis- 
tence in  the  tariff  must  lead  to  disunion,  but  these  ideas  were 
strongly  disapproved  by  Drayton  and  perhaps  others.  There 
was  also  some  discussion  of  the  possibility  of  coercion;  but 
the  answer  was  that  the  Federal  army  was  a  bare  handful,  and 
the  sister  States  would  not  permit  the  marching  of  an  army 
designed  for  that  purpose.  It  was  evidently  an  excited 

47  I  do  not  think  it  has  been  generally  observed  that  this  turn  of  phrase, 
which  is  to  be  found  with  variations  in  many  of  the  Southern  resolutions 
of  the  time  (See  for  example  the  "South  Carolina  Exposition  and  Pro- 
test"), was  evidently  adopted  from  the  like  earlier  proceedings  in  New 
England.  The  Resolutions  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature  of  1809 
declared  the  embargo  "unjust,  oppressive  and  unconstitutional  and  not 
legally  binding  on  the  citizens  of  this  State/'  and  the  Faneuil  Hall  Resolu- 
tions of  March  31,  1811,  resolved  that  the  Non-Intercourse  Act  of  March 
2nd  was  "unjust,  oppressive  and  tyrannical."  Schouler's  "United  States," 
Vol.  II,  pp.  192,  323,  324:  McMaster's  "United  States,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  330, 
422.  Ames's  "  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations/'  pp.  34,  35. 


368  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

meeting  of  hot-headed  and  angry  men,  and  probably 
some  very  ultra  conversation  came  from  the  Hotspurs;  but 
there  was  no  unanimity,  and  the  idea  of  action  was  aban- 
doned.48 

These  meetings  were  probably, —  especially  after  their  out- 
come,—  not  designed  for  public  knowledge ;  but  one  member 
of  the  delegation  (Thomas  R.  Mitchell)  wrote  to  the  press 
about  them,  and  they  became  a  subject  of  controversy,  chiefly 
between  him  and  Hayne.  There  is  no  actual  evidence  that 
Calhoun  had  any  part  in  the  meetings,  and  it  is  clear  he  was 
not  present,  but  it  may  probably  be  assumed  that  he  knew 
of  them  and  his  course  for  a  number  of  years  indicates  that 
he  would  have  been  in  favor  of  mild  counsels  and  opposed 
to  the  advocates  of  resigning  in  passion  as  well  as  to  their 
hints  at  disunion. 

In  several  Southern  States,  meetings  were  held  to  denounce 
the  New  Tariff  Act,  and  the  Legislatures  of  Georgia,  Alabama, 
Mississippi,  and  Virginia  all  adopted  protests  and  memorials.49 
It  will  be  enough,  however,  to  follow  here  the  course  of  events 
in  South  Carolina.  So  fast  did  the  opposition  grow  and  so 
ultra  a  shape  did  it  assume  that,  as  soon  as  June  5,  a  writer 
in  the  Charleston  Courier  said : 

There  was  a  time  when  the  public  sensibility  on  the  ques- 
tion of  disunion  was  such,  that  we  could  not  even  have  tolerated 
the  suggestion  of  its  possibility.  Little  did  any  one  imagine  that 
the  time  was  so  nigh  when  it  should  be  publicly  proclaimed  in 
our  streets.  ...  It  is  known  that  application  has  been  made  to 
the  Governor  to  convene  the  Legislature.  A  memorial  plainly 
indicating  its  object  has  been  circulated  for  signatures,  and  if 
it  has  not  succeeded,  it  is  because  it  has  been  repelled  by  the 
sound  sense  of  a  virtuous  community. 

For  what  purpose  convene  the  Legislature,  if  not  to  cloak  and 
sanction  the  violent  designs  of  individuals.  .  .  .  Revolutionary 
purposes  alone  were  in  contemplation. 

«Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XXXV  (1828-29),  pp.  183,  184,  185,  195, 
199-203,  230-34.  I  have  summed  up  as  fairly  as  I  can  what  seems  to  have 
really  occurred  at  these  meetings.  See  also  T.  Q.  Adams's  "Memoirs," 
Vol.  VIII,  p.  83. 

48  Ames's  "State   Documents  on   Federal   Relations."   pp.   152-157. 

50  The  Charleston  "  Courier  "  of  June  19,  1828. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  369 

On  June  12  at  a  meeting  at  Walterborough,50  in  the  Col- 
leton  District,  addresses  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina  and 
to  the  Governor  were  adopted  on  motion  of  Robert  Barn  well 
Smith  (later  Rhett),  in  which  the  people  were  reminded  of 
their  having,  the  past  Summer,  come  together  in  Districts  all 
over  the  State  and  declared  to  Congress  ( in  reply  to  the  Wool- 
ens Bill)  that  the  protective  tariff  was  contrary  to  their  char- 
tered rights.  The  Legislature  also  had  repeated  what  it  had 
said  in  1824  and  sent  a  protest  to  Congress,  but  all  in  vain. 
The  address  to  the  people  advised  "  an  attitude  of  open  resis- 
tance to  the  laws  of  the  Union/'  while  that  to  the  Governor 
urged  that  the  Legislature  be  called  together,  and  went  on 
that  the  situation  "requires  national51  consultation,  either  in 
Legislature  or  Convention."  At  a  dinner  given  to  McDuffie 
and  Martin  at  Columbia,  on  their  return  from  Washington, 
the  former  said :  "It  was  insufferable.  None  but  a  coward 
could  longer  consent  to  bear  such  a  state  of  things.  ...  It 
would  have  been  better  for  their  representatives  to  have  quit  the 
capital  and  to  have  come  home." 

He  proposed  for  a  toast: 

"  Millions  for  defense,  not  a  cent  for  tribute." 

At  a  very  large  meeting  at  Edgefield  on  July  26,  at  which 
3000  people,  "  all  clothed  in  homespun,"  were  said  to  be  pres- 
ent,52 non-intercourse  with  the  tariff  States  was  urged,  and 
the  same  action  was  again  called  for  on  October  i  at  Cal- 
houn's  old  home,  Abbeville,  at  a  meeting  that  was  thought  to 
have  been  attended  by  as  many  as  5000  persons.53  A  large 
planter  had  earlier, —  in  the  Courier,54 — urged  his  brother 
planters  "  to  come  to  a  firm  resolution  not  to  purchase  any 
Northern  cloth  for  their  domestics."  "  Leonidas "  advo- 
cated 55  prohibitory  duties  on  all  Northern  manufactures  after 
they  should  become  incorporated  with  the  goods  in  general, 
and  also  that  the  Southerners  should  manufacture  their  own 

51  Perhaps  some  reader  will  hardly  observe  that  this  referred  to  action 
by  South  Carolina. 

82 The  Charleston  "Mercury"  of  August  2,  1828. 
""Mercury"  of  October  3,  1828. 
5*  Ibid.,  June,  9,  1828. 
65  Ibid.,  July  18,  1828. 


370  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

wearing  apparel,  raise  their  own  animals,  and  cease  buying 
from  Kentucky. 

Non-intercourse  with  the  tariff  States  and  non-consump- 
tion of  protected  articles  were  remedies  often  suggested,  but 
the  use  of  homespun  seems  to  have  been  the  favorite  of  these 
weapons  drawn  from  the  quiver  of  ancient  days.56  As  late  as 
the  next  December,  at  the  meeting  of  Congress,  McDuffie  and 
some  other  Southern  members  appeared  in  homespun.57  A 
tax  to  be  levied  in  one  way  or  another  on  Northern  goods  was 
also  proposed,58  and  Calhoun  seems,  in  preparing  the  "  Expo- 
sition," 59  to  have  favored  an  excise  duty  upon  them. 

The  agitation  spread  widely  over  the  State,  and  the  people 
were  practically  unanimous  against  the  tariff.  Even  the  Un- 
ionists, while  denouncing  the  policy  of  Nullification,  Were 
nearly  always  careful  to  express  their  opposition  to  protection, 
and  some  conspicuous  instances  to  this  effect  will  be  cited 
later.  During  the  years  1827-28,  memorials,  remonstrances, 
and  petitions  against  the  tariff  were  received  in  Congress  and 
printed  from  the  Charleston  Chamber  of  Commerce,  from 
a  meeting  of  Agriculturists,  from  the  Agricultural  Society  of 
St.  John's  and  from  that  of  St.  Andrew's,  from  the  citizens  of 
Abbeville,  Orangeburg,  Edgefield,  and  Beaufort,  and  from 
fourteen  meetings  throughout  the  State  describing  themselves 
simply  as  "  Citizens  of  South  Carolina,"  as  well  as  from  the 
Legislature.  And  this  list60  is  probably  far  from  complete, 
for  Hayne  said  in  his  Charleston  speech61  of  "July  4,  1831, 


id.,  July  9,  12,  16,  and  22;  August  4;  September  8  and  10;  October 
7,  1828. 

57  Charleston  "  Courier  "  of  December  15,  1828. 

58  Charleston  "  Mercury  "  of  July  7,  1828. 
»•  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  57- 

60  My  list  is  taken  from  Poole's  "  Descriptive  Catalogue,"  nor  have  I 
thought  it  worth  while  to  go  farther.    The  Kershaw  district  apparently 
also  remonstrated  against  the  Woolens'  Bill  of  1827,  the  report  speak- 
ing of  "  the  undying  cupidity  "  of  the  manufacturers,  who  had  had  so 
many  bills  in  their  favor  in  the  past  and  now  wanted  more  (Pamphlet  in 
Gilpin  Collection  in  The  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania).    In  two  of 
the  instances  cited  from  Poole,  the  petitions  merely  call  for  a  "  revision 
of  the  tariff";  but  it  may  probably  be  safely  assumed  that  the  revision 
they  wanted  was  what  modern  days  have  called  a  "  downward  "  one.     In 
one  instance,  in  1824,  a  meeting  of  "citizens"  favored  the  bill  then  be- 
fore Congress. 

61  Pamphlet  in  Charleston  Library  Society. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  371 

after  referring  to  the  earlier  proceedings,  beginning  in  1820: 

There  is  not  a  district  in  the  whole  State,  which  has  not,  within 
the  last  ten  years,  over  and  over  again  forwarded  similar  me- 
morials to  Congress,  until  the  very  name  of  petitions  against  the 
Tariff  became  hateful  to  the  ears  of  the  majority,  who  would 
not  consent  to  read  them,  nor  hardly  suffer  them  to  be  printed. 

All  these  proceedings  were  of  course  closely  watched  by 
Calhoun,  who  had  on  May  4th,  when  the  "  Bill  of  Abomina- 
tions "  was  still  pending  in  the  Senate,  written  to  his  absent 
brother-in-law  of  the  deep  business  depression  in  the  South, 
adding  that  the  tariff  system  "  must  if  persisted  in  reduce  us 
to  poverty,  or  compel  us  to  an  entire  change  of  industry.  You 
can  form  no  idea  how  much  it  has  alienated  that  part  of  the 
country."  To  Monroe,  too,  in  a  guarded  letter  of  July  10, 
he  wrote  of  the  embarrassment  and  excitement  caused  by  the 
tariff  in  the  Southern  States: 

.  .  .  Which  they  almost  unanimously  attribute  to  the  high 
duties.  It  is  not  surprizing,  that  under  this  impression,  they 
should  exhibit  some  excess  of  feelings,  but  I  feel  confident,  that 
the  attachment  to  the  Union  remains  unshaken  with  the  great 
body  of  our  citizens.  Yet  it  cannot  be  disguised,  that  the  sys- 
tem pushed  to  the  present  extreme,  acts  most  unequally  in  its 
pressure  on  the  several  parts,  which  has  of  necessity  a  most  per- 
nicious tendency  on  the  feelings  of  the  oppressed  portions.  .  .  . 
One  thing  seems  to  me  certain,  that  the  system  is  getting  wrong 
and  if  a  speedy  and  effective  remedy  be  not  applied  a  shock  at 
no  long  interval  may  be  expected.82 

62  Calhoun  wrote  Monroe  again  on  the  same  subject  a  few  months  later 
(December  29),  but  Monroe's  answers  were  both  far  from  sympathetic. 
He  deeply  regretted  the  Southern  proceedings,  thinking  them  fraught  with 
great  dangers  to  the  Union  and  likely  to  lead  to  partial  confederacies,  con- 
flicts and  the  overthrow  of  our  system  of  government.  The  Southern 
States  were,  in  his  opinion,  especially  interested  in  the  preservation  of 
the  Union,  and  would  otherwise  be  certain  to  suffer  frightful  calamities 
from  insurrections  of  the  slaves.  He  at  the  same  time  urged  Calhoun 
to  visit  him,  supposing  these  differences  had  deterred  him,  but  begged 
him  to  be  assured  that  they  had  produced  no  effect  on  his  mind,  in  rela- 
tion to  a  visit.  "  Writings  of  James  Monroe,"  Vol.  VII,  pp.  175-77,  187- 
8t>.  Calhoun's  letter  to  Monroe  of  December  29,  1828,  seems  to  be  lost, 
but  Monroe's  answer  to  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  latter's  "  Writings,"  as 
above;  and  a  foot-note  there  refers  shortly  to  the  contents  of  Calhoun's 
letter. 


372  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

On  July  i,  too,  he  had  written,  from  Pendleton,  to  Duff 
Green,  editor  of  the  U.  S.  Telegraph63  of  Washington  (his 
organ)  that  the  country 

...  Is  perfectly  sound  on  the  great  question.  I  do  not  believe 
in  this  state  there  is  one  administration  man  in  fifty.  The 
unanimity  is  so  great,  as  to  allay  all  excitement  on  the  presiden- 
tial question.  There  is  another  of  which  I  can  say  the  same 
thing.  I  mean  the  tariff.  The  excitement  is  deep  and  universal, 
but  I  trust  and  believe  will  be  restrained  within  the  bounds  of 
moderation.  In  its  tendency  I  consider  it  by  far  the  most  dan- 
gerous question  that  has  ever  sprung  up  under  our  system,  and 
mainly  because  its  operation  is  so  unequal  among  the  parts.  .  .  . 
*  The  great  ground  we  have  taken  is  —  the  great  principle  on 
•which  we  stand  is,  that  the  tariff  act  is  unconstitutional  and  must 
be  repealed  —  that  the  rights  of  the  Southern  States  have  been 
destroyed  and  must  be  restored  — -  that  the  Union  is  in  danger  and 
must  be  saved. 

The  statement  often  made  that  Calhoun  was  the  sole  origina- 
tor and  creator  of  Nullification  is  far  from  being  strictly  true, 
and  the  prior  pages  have  shown  that  for  some  years  he  was, 
on  the  contrary  merely  one  smafl  atom  in  the  slow1  growth  of 
the  forces  that  led  theretojXnd, —  even  more, —  that  for  a 
period  he  resisted  the  swelling  tide  of  dissatisfaction.  By  the 
\  date  we  have  now  reached,  however,  and  for  some  little  time 
before,  he  was,  beyond  doubt  a  chief  leader  in  the  matter,  and 
by  the  summer  of  1828  we  shall  find  him  advocating  State 
Interposition  or  Veto  and  formulating  the  method  by  which 
that  remedy, —  pointed  out  in  outline  more  than  once  in  the 
past  by  others, —  was  to  be  carried  out  in  practice  in  all  its 
details. 

It  was  easy  enough  to  use  the  word  "  nullify,"  and  in  sev- 
eral parts  of  the  country  particular  laws  had  been  denied 
obedience  and  their  enforcement  prevented  in  past  years,  but 
the  tariff  laws,  carried  out  as  they  were  in  all  particulars  by 

•»  This  letter  of  Calhoun's  is  printed  in  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXXV 


was  Calhoun's  organ,  at  least  in  1830,  see  ibid.,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  209. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  373 

Federal  officers  within  the  State,  called  for  some  new  ma- 
chinery, in  order  physically  to  accomplish  their  setting  aside.  In 
this  particular,  Calhoun  was  evidently  the  one  man  who  in  the 
main  and  almost  entirely  devised  the  modus  operandi.  He 
it  was,  too,  who  in  the  last  stages,—  from  1828  to  the  end, 
with  the  exception  of  a  time  when  it  will  be  seen  that  he  did 
not  go  as  fast  as  some  of  the  hot-bloods  wanted, —  led  South 
Carolina  into  and  through  the  Nullification  contest. 

About  the  date  of  the  Act  of  1828  and  for  some  time  after 
it,  he  was  evidently  very  active  in  the  matter,  and  the  public 
was  freely  allowed  to  know  that  such  was  the  case.  His  re- 
cently quoted  letter  to  Duff  Green  was  of  course  not  published, 
—  as  it  was  soon  after  it  had  been  written  —  without  his 
consent;  and  at  a  dinner  given  to  him  at  Pendleton  on  July 
4th,  one  of  the  regular  toasts  read : 

The  Congress  of  '76 —  they  taught  the  world  how  oppression 
could  be  successfully  resisted,  may  the  lesson  teach  rulers  that 
their  only  safety  is  in  justice  and  moderation.64 

He  spent  the  summer  of  1828  at  his  residence,  Fort  Hill 
in  Pendleton,  and  it  will  be  best  to  let  him  tell  the  story  of 
what  occurred  there  as  well  as  give  us  his  idea  of  the  times. 
The  famous  Exposition  took  its  origin  at  about  this  date.  He 
writes  in  his  "  Autobiography  "  : 65 

The  entire  South  was  justly  indignant  at  the  passage  of  so  un- 
just and  oppressive  a  measure,  especially  under  the  circumstances 
which  attended  it,  and  the  question  universally  asked  was,  What 
is  to  be  done?  On  his  return  home  this  question  was  often  and 
emphatically  asked  him.  He  was  not  the  man  to  evade  it.  He 
frankly  replied  that  there  was  no  hope  from  Congress;  that  in 
both  houses  there  were  fixed  majorities  in  favour  of  the  sys- 
tem, and  that  there  was  no  hope  of  any  speedy  change  for  the 
better;  but,  on  the  contrary,  things  must  grow  worse,  if  no  effi- 
cient remedy  should  be  applied.  He  said  that  he  could  see  but 
two  possible  remedies  within  the  limits  of  the  Constitution ;  one, 

64  Charleston  "  Courier "  of  July  18,  1828.  Calhoun  said  in  the  Senate 
on  February  15,  16,  1833:  "The  doctrine  which  I  now  sustain,  under  the 
present  difficulties,  I  openly  avowed  and  maintained  immediately  after 
the  act  of  1828."  Speech  on  Force  Bill,  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  II,  p.  217. 

85  Pp.  35,  36. 


374  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  election  of  General  Jackson,  who,  by  bringing  to  bear  sys- 
tematically and  steadily  the  patronage  which  the  protective  sys- 
tem placed  in  his  hands,  might  reduce  the  duties  down  to  the 
revenue  standard ;  and  the  other,  State  interposition  or  Veto,  the 
high  remedy  pointed  out  in  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  resolu- 
tions as  the  proper  one,  after  all  others  had  failed,  against  op- 
pressive and  dangerous  acts  of  the  general  government,  in  pal- 
pable violation  of  the  Constitution.  He  gave  it  as  his  opinion 
that  there  was  no  hope  from  the  judiciary,  and,  as  the  act  stood, 
the  constitutional  question  could  not  be  brought  before  the  courts, 
the  majority  having  refused  to  amend  the  title  of  the  bill  so  as 
to  make  it  appear  on  the  face  of  it  that  the  duties  were  laid 
for  protection  and  not  for  revenue,  expressly  with  the  view  of 
preventing  the  courts  from  taking  jurisdiction,  and  deciding  on 
its  constitutionality.  He  also  stated  that,  although  he  regarded 
General  Jackson's  election  as  certain,  yet  he  was  constrained  to 
say  that  the  circumstances  under  which  the  act  passed,  and  the 
part  which  many  of  his  influential  supporters  took  in  its  passage, 
made  it  doubtful  whether  the  hopes  entertained  from  his  elec- 
tion would,  as  it  regarded  the  protective  system,  be  realized,  and 
expressed  his  belief  that  South  Carolina  would  in  the  end  be 
obliged  to  resort  to  its  ultimate  constitutional  remedy  by  state 
interposition,  and  the  ruinous  consequences  which  must  inevi- 
tably result  from  the  act  to  itself,  to  the  South,  and  finally  to  the 
whole  Union. 

Many  of  the  leading  citizens  of  the  state  visited  Mr.  Calhoun  at 
his  residence,  near  the  mountains  in  South  Carolina,  during  the 
summer  and  autumn  after  his  return  from  Washington,  with  all 
of  whom  he  conversed  freely,  and  expressed  the  same  sentiments. 
But  while  he  stated  his  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  preparing 
in  time  for  the  worst,  he  always  advised  that  there  should  be  no 
precipitation,  nor  anything  done  to  endanger  the  election  of  Gen- 
eral Jackson,  nor,  indeed,  afterward,  till  it  was  ascertained 
whether  his  administration  would  correct  the  evil  before  the  pub- 
lic debt  was  finally  discharged.  He  fixed  on  that  as  the  period 
for  invoking  the  high  authority  of  the  state,  as  one  of  the 
sovereign  parties  to  the  constitutional  compact,  to  arrest  the  evil, 
not  only  because  he  thought  that  ample  time  ought  to  be  allowed 
to  see  if  anything  would  be  done,  but  because  he  believed  that  so 
long  as  the  money,  however  unjustly  and  unconstitutionally  ex- 
torted from  the  people  by  the  act  of  '28,  was  applied  to  the  pay- 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  375 

ment  of  the  debt,  it  should  be  borne.  But  he  thought,  if  the  op- 
eration of  the  act  should  not  then  be  arrested  promptly,  the  vast 
surplus  revenue  which  it  would  afterward  pour  into  the  treas- 
ury would  be  converted  into  the  means  of  perpetuating  it,  and 
fixing  the  system  on  the  country  permanently  and  beyond  the 
reach  of  any  constitutional  remedy. 

He  was  the  more  deeply  impressed  with  the  danger  from  what 
had  already  occurred.  A  leading  advocate  of  the  measure  in 
the  Senate,  Mr.  Dickerson,  of  New  Jersey,  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures,  and  since  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 
had  already  moved  in  anticipation  of  the  payment  of  the  debt, 
and  with  the  view  of  strengthening  the  protective  system,  that 
five  millions  of  dollars  should  annually  be  taken  from  the  treasury 
and  divided  among  the  states.  Such  a  proposition  could  not  fail 
to  arouse  the  attention  and  apprehension  of  one  so  sagacious  and 
vigilant  as  Mr.  Calhoun.  He  saw  at  once  the  full  extent  of  the 
danger.  No  measure  could  be  devised  more  insidious,  corrupt- 
ing, or  better  calculated  to  effect  the  object  contemplated.  .  .  . 

So  deep  was  his  conviction  of  the  danger,  that  when  he  was 
requested  by  one  of  the  members  elected  to  the  Legislature  of 
South  Carolina,  with  whom  he  had  conversed  freely  when  on  a 
visit  to  him,  and  who  expected  to  be  on  the  Committee  of  Fed- 
eral Relations,  to  give  him  his  views  on  the  subject,  he  did  not 
hesitate  to  draw  them  up  in  the  shape  of  a  report,  in  which  he 
fully  expressed  himself  as  to  the  disease,  the  danger,  and  the 
remedy;  and,  regardless  of  popularity,  he  gave  him  authority 
to  state  who  was  its  author,  should  he  think  it  would  be  of  any 
service.  The  paper  was  reported  by  the  committee  with  some, 
though  not  material  alterations.  Five  thousand  copies  were  or- 
dered by  the  Legislature  to  be  printed,  under  the  title  of  "  The 
South  Carolina  Exposition  and  Protest  on  the  subject  of  the 
Tariff." 

It  seems  that  William  C.  Preston  66  was  the  member  of  the 
Legislature,  at  whose  instance, —  either  during  a  visit  in  the 

66  Preston  is  generally  stated  to  be  the  person  in  question.  See,  e.g., 
Hunt's  "  Calhoun,"  p.  71.  Jenkins's  "  Life  "  does  not  name  any  one,  and 
I  have  found  no  evidence  on  the  point,  unless  that  Preston's  resolutions, 
offered  at  the  coming  session  of  the  Legislature,  and  mentioned  in 
the  text  shortly  infra,  perhaps  bear  evidence  of  the  influence  of  Calhoun's 
views.  They  speak,  e.g.,  of  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States,  and  of  the 
States  having  the  right  "acting  in  their  high  sovereign  capacity  to  inter- 
pose and  arrest  the  usurpation." 


376  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

summer  or  at  a  later  period, —  Calhoun  drafted  the  South  Car- 
olina Exposition.  The  Governor  had  not, —  though  more 
than  once  requested  so  to  do, —  called  the  Legislature  together 
in  special  session ;  and  when  it  met  in  November,  while  his 
message  spoke  of  the  tariff  law  of  1828  as  a  palpable  violation 
of  the  Constitution  which  he  wanted  resisted  by  every  means 
afforded  by  the  Constitution  and  law  of  the  land,  yet  his  course 
was  apparently  not  at  all  satisfactory  to  the  would-be  Nullifi- 
ers.  He  urged,  for  instance,  that  "  no  plan  be  adopted  which 
will  separate  the  interests  of  this  State  from  those  of  the  other 
suffering  States."  This  was  by  no  means  the  programme  or, 
in  modern  parlance,  "  slate,"  of  the  leaders. 

Early  in  the  session,  a  number  of  resolutions  6T  against  the 
tariff  and  of  various  degrees  of  heat  were  submitted  in  the 
House  by  Preston  and  others.  A  special  committee  of  seven, 
—  consisting  of  James  Gregg,  D.  L.  Wardlaw,  Hugh  S.  Le- 
gare,  Arthur  P.  Hayne,  Wm.  C.  Preston,  William  Elliott,  and 
R.  Barnwell  Smith, —  was  then  appointed,68  and  from  them  on 
December  18  Gregg  reported,  with  some  minor  changes,  Cal- 
houn's "  Exposition/7  which  had  presumably  been  given  to 
the  Committee  by  Preston.  A  form  of  "  Protest/'  by  the 
State  was  added,  with  eight  reasons  therefor;  but  it  is  not 
clear  whether  the  "  Protest "  and  reasons  were  Calhoun's  or 
the  committee's.69 

In  the  Senate,  also,  resolutions  upon  the  subject  were  pre- 
sented by  J.  S.  Deas,  Black,  and  Wilson;  and  .after  their 
consideration  in  committee  of  the  whole,  a  resolution  was 

67  The  resolutions  are  reproduced  by  Mr.  A.  S.  Salley,  Jr.,  in  the  "  Pub- 
lications of  the  Southern  History  Association,"  Vol.  Ill  (1899),  pp.  212- 
20.  See  also  Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XXXV,  pp.  304-10. 

•»  "  Calhoun's  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  i.  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXXV, 
p.  307. 

69 "  Calhoun's  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  57-59.  Niles's  "Register,"  Vol. 
XXXV,  p.  309,  contains  a  letter  of  December  18,  from  Columbia,  say- 
ing that  the  report  had  been  presented  that  morning,  and  Niles  adds  that 
it  was  a  very  able  paper  but  feared  it  was  too  long  to  be  read.  To  the 
same  effect  is  the  comment  of  the  Charleston  "Mercury"  of  December 
22,  1828,  while  the  unfavorable  "  Courier  "  of  the  same  date  merely  re- 
produces from  the  "  Southern  Patriot "  the  fact  that  on  the  i8th  the 
special  committee  made  "an  elaborate  report  to  the  House,— the  read- 
ing whereof  took  two  hours."  Such  was  the  obscure  birth  of  the 
"  Exposition." 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  377 

V  adopted  by  34  to  6,  to  the  effect  that  the  protective  tariff  was 
v  u  unconstitutional  and  should  he/ resisted  and  the  other  States 
be  invited  to  co-operate.'^x^is  was  then  amended  that  it 
should  be  sent  to  the  several  States,  and  finally  a  Committee 
of  9  was  appointed  to  draft  such  a  declaration  as  should  clearly 
elucidate  the  principles  of  South  Carolina  upon  the  subject. 
Perhaps  we  may  suspect  that  here  is  an  expression  of  the  un- 
willingness of  members  to  endorse  Calhoun's  Exposition.  The 
Committee  of  9  reported  in  a  few  days  (December  19),  and 
apparently70  its  report  consisted  of  those  resolutions  of  the 
Senate,  which  were  in  the  end  approved  by  both  houses. 

The  two  branches  disagreed,  however,  at  first,  each  adher- 
ing to  its  own  measure  and  refusing  to  agree  to  that  suggested 
by  the  other,  and  there  seemed  much  likelihood  of  an  adjourn- 
ment without  any  action  upon  the  subject.  December  20  was 
a  very  busy  day;  a  second  session  was  held  in  the  evening, 
and  various  messages  were  exchanged  between  the  two  houses. 
The  Senate  at  one  time  voted  by  21  to  10  to  reject  the  House 
"  Protest,"  and  the  subject  was  perhaps  complicated  by  a  dis- 
agreement on  the  "  Bill  for  Supplies."  This  latter  was  first 
gotten  out  of  the  way,  and  then  at  a  late  hour71  on  Saturday 
night, —  December  20, —  a  committee  of  conference  upon  the 
tariff  matter  was  appointed  by  both  houses.  The  Committee 
reported  recommending  the  adoption  of  the  "  Protest," — 
which  had  originated  in  the  House  and  was  probably  Cal- 
houn's,—  and  that  the  "  Protest "  should  be  entered  on  the 
Journals  of  Congress;  and  it  also  recommended  the  adoption 
of  resolutions,  which  were  probably  those  already  referred  to, 
which  had  been  reported  to  the  Senate  on  December  19,  from 
the  committee  of  9.  Both  houses  agreed  to  this  report,  and 
the  session  at  length  ended.72 

70  The   report  is  not  transcribed  in  the  Journal,  but  it  was   ordered 
printed  and  made  a  part  of  the  special  orders  upon  the  general  subject, 
which  came  up  at  a  very  late  hour  of  the  session. 

71  At  about  1 1 130,  according  to  the  "  Courier  "  of  December  23. 

72  The  "  Courier  "  of  the  23rd  says  the  adjournment  was  at  about  1 130 
a.m.   Sunday.    The   MS.   Journal  of   the   House   contains   no   statement 
that  the  report  of  the  conference  Committee  was  approved,  but  perhaps 
such  omissions  could  be  found  in  other  instances  and  the  printed  laws 
and  other  records  show  the  fact  sufficiently.    I  have  gone  over  the  matter 


378  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

The  resolutions73  of  the  Senate,  thus  approved  by  both 
branches,  recited  that  the  opinion  of  the  Legislature,  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  years  1825  and  1827,  was  unchanged  and  that 
it  was  "  restrained  from  the  assertion  of  the  sovereign  rights 
of  the  state  by  the  hope  that  the  magnanimity  and  justice  of 
the  good  people  of  the  Union  will  effect  the  abandonment  of  a 
system,  partial  in  its  nature,  unjust  in  its  operation  and  not 
within  the  powers  delegated  to  Congress."  Another  clause  di- 
rected that  copies  of  this  resolution,  together  with  those  of 
1825  and  1827,  be  sent  to  the  several  States. 

The  "  Protest," —  the  other  declaration  upon  the  general  sub- 
ject approved  by  both  Houses, —  was  presented  in  the  U.  S. 
Senate  on  February  10,  1829,  by  William  Smith,  the  State's 
senior  senator.  It  read:  "The  Senate  and  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives of  South  Carolina  now  met  and  sitting  in  General 
Assembly  ...  do,  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the  good 
people  of  the  said  Commonwealth,  solemnly  protest  against  the 
system  of  protecting  duties  lately  adopted  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment," giving  eight  reasons,  which  need  not  be  quoted 
here;  and  the  right  was  claimed,  on  behalf  of  the  State,  to 
enter  upon  the  Journals  of  the  Senate,  "  their  protest  against 
it  as  unconstitutional,  oppressive,  and  unjust."  74 

Politics  make  strange  bedfellows,  and  the  changes  of  the 
complicated  game  are  infinite.  How  interesting  it  would  be 
and  how  curious  to  know  the  language  that  the  pugnacious  and 
bitter  Smith  indulged  in  among  his  intimates  in  regard  to 
Calhoun,  now  that  the  kaleidoscope  of  human  events  found 
him  offering  State  Rights  papers  drawn  by  his  arch-enemy 
whom  he  knew  to  be  the  author  of  the  "  Exposition,"  which 
went  much  further  than  Smith  had  probably  ever  gone.  Inter- 
esting indeed ;  but  hardly  edifying! 

It  has  been  said  that  the  resolutions  in  regard  to  the  tariff 
were  sent  to  the  several  States,  and  we  shall  find  that  a  few 

in  the  MS.  Journals  of  the  House  and  Senate,  and  my  account  is  based 
on  them.  See,  also,  Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XXXV,  pp.  307-10;  and 
the  Charleston  "  Mercury "  and  "  Courier,"  both  of  December  23. 

73  Laws  of  South  Carolina,  1828,  pp.  17-19. 

7*  Congressional  Debates,  V.  (1828-29),  5*-58.  "  Calhoun's  Works," 
Vol.  VI,  pp.  57-59. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  379 

favorable  replies  were  at  first  received,  though  in  a  short  time 
South  Carolina  was  destined  to  stand  quite  alone  and,  as  she 
doubtless  thought,  deserted.  Indeed,  Calhoun  emphasized,  in 
1833,  the  fact  that  petitions,  remonstrances,  and  protests 
against  the  protective  system  came  in  from  Virginia  and  all 
the  Southern  States  until  1828,  "when  Carolina,  for  the  first 
time,  changed  the  character  of  her  resistance,  by  holding  up 
her  reserved  rights  as  the  shield  of  her  defense  against  further 
encroachment."  75  And  there,  I  think,  we  must  find  the  real 
cause  of  the  apparent  desertion :  The  Southern  States  were 
all  quite  enough  aroused  to  denounce  the  tariff  and  threaten 
State  action  against  it,  so  long  as  the  question  remained  some- 
what doctrinaire  and  they  were  not  led  to  the  brink  of  a 
serious  and  possibly  armed  clash  with  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, but  they  drew  back  at  once  at  the  perils  of  disunion 
plainly  visible  in  the  latter  course. 

This  was  much  what  had  happened  in  the  past  as  to  some 
of  the  Fathers  of  events  in  1798-99.  Madison  and  his  as- 
sociates of  that  period  surely  meant76  (if  they  had  any  defi- 
nite meaning)  that  the  individual  States  could  rightfully  pre- 
vent the  enforcement  within  their  respective  limits  of  a  Fed- 
eral law  they  deemed  clearly  beyond  the  powers  conferred,  but 
the  question  remained  then  academic,  and  did  not  approach  an 

75  Speech  on  Force  Bill  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  II,  p.  241.    He  also  wrote 
in  his  "Autobiography,"  p.  38:  "He   [himself]   and  the  state  now  stood 
alone.  .  .  .  They  were  deserted  by  all  the  Southern  States,  though  most  of 
them  had  adopted  the   strongest  resolutions,  declaring  the  tariff  of   '28 
to    be    oppressive,    unjust,    unequal,    and    unconstitutional,    and    pledging 
themselves  in  the  most  positive  manner  to  oppose  it." 

76  It   is   impossible   to   argue   here  at  any  length   the   meaning  of   the\ 
famous  resolutions  of  1798-99,  but  to  me  it  seems  absolutely  plain.    There 
is  no  answer  to  the  perfectly  plain  language  used.     Chancellor  Harper, 
in  his  speech  at  Columbia  on  September  20,  1830  ("The  Remedy  by  State 
Interposition,  or  Nullification,  Explained."     Pamphlet  in  Library  of  Uni- 
versity of  South  Carolina  and  in  Library  Co.  of  Philadelphia,  pp.  16-18), 
spoke  of  the  absurdity  of  the  efforts  then  making  to  explain  the  resolu- 
tions otherwise  and  went  on  to  ask :  "  How  did  the  Legislatures  of  Con- 
necticut, Massachusetts  and  others,  who  made  counter  resolutions  under- 
stand them?    Was  it  then  thought  there  was  anything  ambiguous  in  his 
words,  or  was  the  interpretation  then  put  upon  them,  even  disavowed  ?  " 
See  also  F.  M.  Anderson's  "  Contemporary  Opinion  of  the  Virginia  and 
Kentucky  Resolutions"    ("American  Historical  Review,"  Vol.  V   (1898- 
1900),  pp.  45-63,  225-52),  and  Ames's  "State  Documents  on  Federal  Re- 
lations," pp.  16-26. 


380  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

actual  clash  of  authority.  When,  more  than  thirty  years  later, 
a  concrete  instance  came  to  a  head  and  the  perils  of  revolu- 
tionary conflict  presented  themselves  to  Madison's  declining 
years,  the  practical  instance,  the  pregnant  horrors  of  the  ac- 
tual condition,  so  different  from  the  rather  abstract  theory 
and  mere  threats  of  1799,  appalled  him,  and  he  denied  that  he 
had  ever  intended  to  assert  what  his  followers  of  1832  found 
plainly  written  in  his  language  of  sturdy  manhood.  But  he 
never  did  —  he  could  not  —  give  any  satisfactory  explana- 
tion of  his  writings  of  1799  other  than  that  which  Calhoun  and 
the  Nullifiers  drew  from  them. 

All  men  are  largely  opportunists,  and  the  truth  is  that  in 
the  earlier  instance,  swept  on  by  the  desire  to  attain  a  particu- 
lar and  highly  important  end,  Madison  and  his  associates  had 
allowed  their  abstract  ideas  to  run  away  with  them  a  little  and 
had  developed  a  theory  of  our  government  which  they  would 
then  have  maintained,  and  probably  did  often  say  in  con- 
versation was  meant  literally ;  but,  when  the  grievous  wrongs, 
—  at  the  time  the  chief  issue  in  public  affairs, —  had  later  be- 
come mere  history  and  their  blood  had  cooled,  they  soon  came 
then  have  maintained,  and  probably  did  often  say  in  con- 
tention. It  too  plainly  tended  to  annihilate  all  real  govern- 
ment. 

Precisely  the  same  was  the  case  about  1830  with  the  South- 
ern States  in  general.  In  reply  to  the  earlier  South  Carolina 
Resolutions  of  1827,  Georgia  had  answered  in  December,  1828, 
by  expressing  her  concurrence  "  with  the  legislature  of  the 
State  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  Resolutions  adopted  at  their 
December  session  in  1827,  in  relation  to  the  powers  of  the 
General  Government  and  state  rights." 77  The  Committee's 
report,  which  was  adopted,  was  to  the  effect  that  protective 

77 1  cite  from  the  copy  transmitted  to  South  Carolina,  printed  in  her 
Laws  for  1829,  pp.  79-81;  but  see,  also,  Georgia  Laws,  1828,  pp.  174-77- 
A  remonstrance  from  Georgia  addressed  to  the  States  in  favor  of  the 
tariff,  dated  December  19,  1828,  threatens  nullification  in  some  form,  for 
it  says :  "  if  the  unconstitutional  measures  are  persevered  in  ...  We 
must  as  we  did  under  British  domination,  seek  an  effectual  remedy.'" 
South  Carolina  Laws,  1829,  pp.  87-90.  See,  also,  on  this  subject  "Georgia 
and  State  Rights,"  by  U.  B.  Phillips,  in  "Annual  Reports  of  American 
Historical  Association"  (1901),  Vol.  II,  pp.  117,  118,  120,  121. 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  381 

tariff  laws  were  unconstitutional  and  that  the  States  had  "  the 
unquestionable  right  in  case  of  any  infraction  of  the  general 
compact  ...  to  complain,  remonstrate,  and  even  to  refuse 
obedience  to  any  measure  of  the  General  Government  mani- 
festly against,  and  in  violation  of  the  constitution;  and  in 
short  to  seek  redress  of  their  wrongs  by  all  the  means  right- 
fully exercised  by  a  sovereign  and  independent  Government." 
Virginia  was  perhaps  equally  explicit  at  a  slightly  later  date, 
and  resolved  in  February,  1829: 

That  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  being  a  Federative 
Compact  between  sovereign  States,  in  construing  which  no  com- 
mon arbiter  is  known,  each  State  has  the  right  to  construe  the 
compact  for  herself,  but  that  each  State,  in  so  doing,  "  should  be 
guided  ...  by  a  sense  of  forbearance  and  respect  for  the  opinion 
of  the  other  States,  and  by  community  of  attachment  to  the  Union, 
so  far  as  the  same  may  be  consistent  with  self-preservation.  .  .  ." 

The  protective  tariff  laws  were  in  her  opinion  unconstitu- 
tional.78 

Alabama,  too,  in  1829  sent  to  Congress  "  a  solemn  protest 
against  the  tariff  act  of  1828  as  unconstitutional,  unequal,  un- 
just and  oppressive  in  its  operation,"  but  did  not  take  up  Nulli- 
fication. These  very  resolutions,  indeed,  expressed  the  opin- 
ion that  "  open  and  unqualified  resistance  should  be  the  last  and 
desperate  alternative  between  submission  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  liberty  of  the  people  on  the  other."  79 

Even  Ohio  concurred  in  part  and  answered  the  South  Caro- 
lina resolutions  of  1827  in  February,  1828,  by  resolving  that 
"  to  the  general  proposition  contained  in  the  first  resolution 
[that  the  Constitution  is  '  a  compact  between  the  people  of  the 
different  States  with  each  other  as  separate  independent  sover- 
eignties ']  abstracted  from  definite  questions  of  constitutional 

78  South  Carolina  Laws,  1829,  pp.  71-79 :  see  also  Ames's  "  State  Docu- 
ments on  Federal  Relations,"  pp.  156,  157. 

79  Poole's    "  Descriptive    Catalogue,"    etc.,    p.    210.    Laws    of    Alabama, 
1828,  pp.   101,  102.    The  Alabama  Legislature  had  also  protested  at  the 

C'or  session  against  the  Woolens  Bill  and  the  protective  tariff  in  general, 
ws  1827,  pp.  169-72 ;  Poole,  p.  196,  Ames's  "  State  Documents,"  &c.,  pp. 
150,  151.    North  Carolina,  too,  seems  to  have  protested  in  1827-28,  Poole, 
p.  195,  Ames's  "  State  Documents,"  &c.,  pp.  148,  149.    I  have  not  been  able 
to  find  this  protest  or  remonstrance  in  the  North  Carolina  Laws. 


382  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

I 

right  or  power  this  general  assembly  perceive  no  grounds  of 
objection,"  but  expressed  their  solemn  dissent  from;  the  doc- 
trines that  protective  tariff  laws  and  internal  improvements 
were  unconstitutional.^  gut  here  the  favorable  aqytvcr^  j 
ended  and  resolutions  oKan  opposite  tenor  were  passed  in  at 
least  two  Southern  States,81  and  when  South  Carolina  acted 
upon  her  theories  in  1832,  she  was  universally  frowned  upon^^-^ 

Finally,  in  regard  to  the  famous  "  Exposition  "of  Calhoun, 
as  has  been  seen,  it  was  not  adopted  by  either  branch  of  the 
South  Carolina  Legislature,  but  5000  copies  were  ordered 
printed  by  the  House.82  On  the  title  page,  this  publication  was 
called :  "  Exposition  and  Protest  reported  by  the  Special  Com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Representatives:  read  and  ordered  to 
be  printed  December  19,  1828."  Printed  thus  by  authority 
and  widely  circulated  as  it  was,  as  well  as  offering,  in  Cal- 
houn's  crystal-like  logic,  by  far  the  most  complete  argument 
to  be  found  in  favor  of  South  Carolina's  contentions,  we  need 
not  wonder  that  it  came  ere  long  to  be  known  as  "  The  South 
Carolina  Exposition."  Calhoun  himself  so  wrote  of  it,83  and 
was  perhaps  not  unwilling  to  magnify  his  own  offspring. 
Many  writers  have  even  supposed  that  it  was  formally  adopted 
by  the  Legislature.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  never  formally 
approved  by  any  agency  of  the  State  government  having 
higher  authority  than  a  Special  Committee  of  one  branch  of 
the  Legislature,  and  it  was  said  that  members  thought  it  con- 
tained tenets  on  which  they  ought  not  to  be  committed.84 

The  Exposition  85  Had  to  cover  a  wide  field  of  argument. 

80  Acts    of    Local    Nature,    First    Session,    Twenty-Sixth    General    As- 
sembly (Ohio),  Vol.  XXVI,  p.  187. 

81  Kentucky  and  Louisiana.    Ames's  "  State  Documents  on  Federal  Rela- 
tions," pp.  158-163.     A  Democratic  State  Convention  of  Mississippi  also 
unanimously  resolved  against  the  existence  of  the  alleged  right  of  nullifica- 
tion and  secession  but  this  was  apparently  in  1834.    John  W.  Garner's  "  The 
First  Struggle  over  Secession  in  Mississippi "  in  "  Publications  of  Missis- 
sippi Historical  Society,"  Vol.  IV,  pp.  oo,  91. 

82  MSS.  Journal  of  the  House,  under  date  of  December  19. 
'"Autobiography,"  p.  36. 

^84  Cooper  so  writes  in  his  editorial  notes  to  the  "Statutes  at  Large," 
Vol.  I,  p.  273.  He  also  writes  there  that  the  Exposition  "  is  inserted  as 
being  a  document  of  great  historial  interest.  But  although  the  report 
was  read  and  ordered  to  be  printed,  it  was  not  adopted  by  the  two 
Houses." 
8B"Calhoun's  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  2-57,  contains  the  Exposition  as 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  383 

Taking  up  the  tariff  first,  it  began  by  admitting  the  general 
proposition  that  the  consumers  pay  an  impost,  but  contended 
that  where  a  tariff  exists  and  "  furnishes  the  means  [to  some] 
of  indemnifying  themselves,  ...  no  proposition  can  be  more 
fallacious  than  that  the  consumers  pay."  This  was  argued 
at  length,  and  here  may  probably  be  found  the  mould  in  which 
was  cast  McDuffie's  famous  4O-bale  theory.86  The  reader 
must  decide  for  himself  as  to  its  validity.87  Later  pages  went 
into  the  wide  divergence  of  interests  in  the  two  sections  of 
the  country,  the  dangers  of  irresponsible  power,  and  soon 
branched  off  to  the  question  as  to  the  nature  of  our  system 
with  its  two  governmental  agencies.W'The  distinction  between 
government  and  sovereignty  was  carefully  drawn, —  the  former 
divided  by  the  Constitution  in  our  case  between  the  States  and 
the  Federal  Government,  while  the  latter  was  and  always  had 
been  inherent  in  the  people  of  the  States  respectively^*^ 
means  had  been  provided  in  words,  it  said,  to  guard  the 
reserved  rights  of  the  States,  while  the  right  of  appeal  to  the 
U.  S.  Supreme  Court,  under  the  Twenty-Fifth  Section  of  the 
Judiciary  Act  of  1789,  was  provided  to  protect  the  rights  vested 
in  the  General  Government  from  violation  by  the  State  authori- 
ties. 

But  this  judicial  power  had  no  application  to  the  rights  of  the 
parties  to  the  compact,  and  was  confined  to  questions  of  the 
authority  of  different  departments,  as  Madison  had  so  well 

Calhoun  drew  it.  The  printed  pamphlet  contains  it,  as  reported  to  the 
Legislature.  R.  B.  Rhett  wrote  Cralle  in  1854  that  it  "was  greatly  al- 
tered by  the  committee,  who  reported  it  to  the  Legislature,  of  which  I 
was  one.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  nothing  to  do,  with  these  alterations  and  I 
know  disapproved  of  them."  R.  B.  Rhett  on  the  "  Biography  of  Calhoun," 
1854,  by  Gaillard  Hunt  in  "American  Historical  Review"  (1907-08), 
Vol.  XIII,  pp.  310-312. 

86  See,  also,   the   Report  prepared  by  Calhoun   for  the  Committee  on 
Federal  Relations  of  the  Legislature,  November  Session,  1831 :  "  Works," 
Vol.  VI,  p.  115. 

87  Few  or  none  will  doubt  the  soundness  of  one  of  their  contentions, 
which   probably   contains    the   gist   of   their   arguments   upon   this   point. 
Calhoun  wrote  Micah  Sterling  on  September  i,  1828,  that  he  was  not  sur- 
prised at  the  views  held  in  the  North  in  regard  to  the  excitement  over 
the  tariff  in  the  South,  and  then  explained  that  they  could  not  recoup 
themselves   from   the  consumer's  pocket,   as  the   North  could   do.    Our 
market  is  a  foreign  one,  and  we  can  receive  no  protection  in  it.    Letter 
in  the  collection  of  John  Gribbel,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia. 


384  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

shown  in  his  Report  of  1799.  To  argue  that  the  Federal  au- 
thorities, judicial  or  any  other,  could  finally  decide  on  the  ex- 
tent of  the  powers  conferred  upon  the  Union,  was  not  to  divide 
the  powers  but  to  make  our  Federal  Government  one  consoli- 
dated one.  How,  then,  w|ere  the  States  to  be  protected  ?  The 
answer  is  that  their  right  of  interposing  to  protect  their  pow- 
ers from  violation  by  the  Federal  authorities  is  an  essen- 
tial attribute  of  sovereignty,  implied,  it  is  true,  but  not  for 
that  reason  wanting  in  certainty  any  more  than  is  the  equally 
implied  power  of  the  courts  to  hold  laws  unconstitutional. 
Hamilton  and  Madison  were  quoted  to  this  point. 

Finally,  the  question  was  discussed  as  to  how  to  apply  the 
proposed  remedy  of  State  veto.  The  Legislature  probably  had 
the  power  to  act  in  the  matter,  but  a  Convention  was  best, 
because  free  from  all  doubt.  It  would,  beyond  question,  rep- 
resent the  highest  sovereignty  in  the  State,  and  on  it  would 
rest  the  duty  of  deciding  whether  the  tariff  laws  were  so 
palpable  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  as  to  justify  the  inter- 
position of  the  State.  An  amendment  to  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution affirming  the  disputed  power  could  then,  it  was  ad- 
mitted, in  turn  overrule  the  action  of  the  State  and  make  the 
disputed  exercise  of  power  constitutional.  That  the  facts 
justified  interposition  was  clear;  but  delay  was  recommended 
in  the  hope  that  the  obnoxious  laws  might  be  repealed.  It 
was  absurd  to  anticipate  danger  of  armed  conflict  under  a 
government  of  laws,  where  one  of  the  sovereign  parties  should 
exercise  a  power  she  conscientiously  believed  to  belong  to  her. 

From  this  time  on,  the  somewhat  nebulous  historical  doc- 
trine of  Nullification,  condensed  at  length  into  definite  form, 
took  a  distinct  place  in  the  minds  of  many  in  the  theory  of  our 
system.  Millions  disbelieved  in  it  then,  and  more  and  more 
came  in  time  to  reject  and  ridicule  it,  but  its  equation  and 
orbit,  if  the  expression  may  be  allowed,  had  now  been  calcu- 
lated and  were  to  be  found,  written  out  in  plain  terms,  by  any 
seeker.  This  elucidation  and  description  were  beyond  doubt 
due  to  Calhoun.  He  it  was,  whose  analytical  mind  had  here 
brought  order  out  of  chaos. 

It  is  true  that  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  had  antedated  Calhoun 


ADAMS'S  ADMINISTRATION  385 

by  some  two  months  in  proclaiming  the  doctrine  publicly. 
He  had  set  it  forth  quite  fully  and  with  remarkable  accuracy 
in  his  Walterborough  speech88  of  October  21,  1828,  and 
seems  to  have  been  the  very  first  to  do  so,  but  it  can  hardly 
be  doubted  that  he  had  derived  his  knowledge  from  Calhoun, 
probably  during  a  visit  to  Fort  Hill.  The  later  relations  of 
the  two  men  to  the  subject  and  to  each  other  seem  to  demon- 
strate this. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  too,  that,  probably  at  the  very  same  time 
when  Calhoun  was  writing  the  Exposition,  the  doctrine  of 
Nullification  was  to  some  extent  set  forth  by  "  Sidney  "  in  a  se- 
ries of  letters  to  the  Charleston  Mercury.™  Who  the  author 
was  is  unknown,  nor  is  there  any  actual  knowledge  as  to  where 
he  derived  his  information.  Possibly,  as  has  been  suggested,90 
he  may  have  been  another  of  those  who  visited  Calhoun  at 
Fort  Hill  during  the  time  when  Calhoun  was  at  home  between 
sessions.  The  latter  had  reached  Pendleton  on  the  2Qth  of 
May.91 

"  Sidney "  did  well  enough  in  treating  some  phases  of 
Nullification  but  broke  down  hopelessly  on  other  points.  He 
wanted  their  Legislature  to  declare  the  tariff  laws  void  and 
that  merchants  should  refuse  to  pay  duties.  They  were  then 
to  sue  in  the  State  Courts,  presumably  to  recover  their  goods, 
and  on  the  trial  of  the  case  proof  was  apparently  to  be  offered 
that  the  Acts  were  designed  for  protection.  "  For  the  purpose 
of  discovering  what  were  the  objects  the  Bill  intended  accom- 
plishing," wrote  this  would-be  leader,  distinctly  referring  to  the 
method  in  which  his  proposed  case  was  to  be  tried,  "  we  must 
look  to  the  petitioners  whom  it  intended  to  benefit,  and  the 
speeches  of  those  who  passed  it."  If  he  had  taken  inspira- 
tion from  Calhoun,  he  had  learned  his  lesson  badly,  and  he 
would  have  been  a  sadly  unsafe  leader.  Calhoun  was  perhaps 
quite  wrong  in  his  chief  contention,  but  there  were  no  such 
flaws  as  this  in  the  suit  of  armor  he  had  forged. 

88  Pamphlet  in  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.     O'Neall  tells  us 
that  he  had  "  often  heard  Chancellor  Harper  claim  [Nullification]   to  be 
his  own  progeny."    "  Bench  and  Bar,"  etc.,  Vol.  II,  p.  286.  ^"W 

89  Issues  of  July  3,  4,  8,  1828,  and  possibly  of  other  dates. 

90  Prof.  Houston  in  his  "  Study  of  Nullification,"  p.  76. 
81  Charleston  "  Courier  "  of  June  9,  1828. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   WIDENING   BREACH 

Presidential  Campaign  of  1828-29  —  Jackson-Calhoun 
Ticket  Chosen  —  The  President's  Cabinet  —  Calhoun's  Ri- 
valry with  Van  Buren  —  The  Eaton  Affair  —  Growing  Tension 
with  Jackson  —  Crawford  —  Jackson's  Quarrel  with  Calhoun. 

THE  events  that  have  been  under  discussion  in  the  last  chap- 
ter, occurred  at  a  time  when  another  question,  always  of  vital 
moment  in  American  politics,  was  growing  very  acute.  A 
Presidential  election  was  near  at  hand,  and  the  difficulties  of  the 
South,  especially  of  the  leaders  in  South  Carolina,  where  greatly 
enhanced  by  the  necessity  of  declaring  for  some  one  of  the 
candidates.  To  them,  other  issues  were  of  far  more  impor- 
tance than  was  the  question  of  who  should  be  President,  nor 
was  there  much  to  indicate  who  was  the  candidate  most  likely 
to  advance  their  interests. 

As  early  as  December,  1826,  however,  before  the  tariff 
issue  had  come  to  dwarf  all  others,  a  caucus  of  the  South  Caro- 
lina Legislature  had  voted  almost  unanimously  for  Jackson,1 
and  here  was  of  course  an  indication.  Possibly,  this  was 
partly  the  reason  why,  during  the  summer  after  the  passage  of 
the  Tariff  Act  of  1828,  when  Calhoun  was  consulted  as  to 
the  best  course  for  the  State  to  follow,  he  urged  that  they 
should  support  Jackson.  It  was  a  choice  of  evils,  he  added, 
for  numbers  of  the  general's  supporters  Were  tariff  men,  but 
he  was  a  Southerner  and  slave-owner,  not  at  all  an  out-spoken 
tariff  man,  and  he  had  behind  him  a  vast  popularity.  At  the 
same  time,  Calhoun  expressed  great  doubts,  founded  on  the 
course  taken  by  many  of  Jackson's  supporters  in  the  pas-' 
sage  of  the  Act  of  1828,  whether  he  would  bring  them  any 

1  Charleston  "  Mercury,"  December  26,  1828.  cited  in  Houston's  "  Nulli- 
fication," p.  67. 

386 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  387 

relief  and  inclined  to  the  belief  that  they  would  in  the  end 
be  compelled  to  resort  to  State  interposition.2 
V^South  Carolina  accordingly  supported  the  ticket  of  Jackson 
and  Calhoun,  and  on  July  ist  the  latter  wrote  that  "the 
unanimity  is  so  great  as  to  allay  all  excitement  on  the  presi- 
dential question."  sU-He  was  doubtless  anxious  to  keep  on 
good  terms  with  the  general  and  wrote  him  on  July  10  4  about 
the  effort  (mentioned  later)  to  embroil  Monroe  and  himself 
with  Jackson,  saying  in  substance  that  the  real  difference  be- 
tween them  had  turned  on  the  construction  of  orders  and  that 
it  was  enough  that  the  orders  had  been  honestly  issued  and 
honestly  executed.  Turning  next  to  the  excitement  in  the 
South  over  the  tariff,  he  thought  it  was  not  surprising  that 
some  excess  of  feeling  existed;  but  added  that  the  hope  that 
under  Jackson  "  a  better  order  of  things  will  commence,  in 
which  an  equal  distribution  of  the  burdens  and  benefits  of 
government,  economy,  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  and 
finally  the  removal  of  oppressive  duties,  will  be  primary  objects 
of  policy,  is  what  mainly  consoles  this  quarter  of  the  Union." 

In  due  time  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  appointed  elec- 
tors in  favor  of  the  Jackson-Calhoun  ticket  and,  as  is  well 
known,  it  was  chosen  by  a  large  majority  of  the  electoral 
vote,  178  to  83.  A  lull  in  politics  doubtless  at  once  then  fol- 
lowed, while  people  were  wondering  what  was  in  store  for 
them  under  the  new  and  quite  untried  powers  about  to  assume 
the  reins  of  office. 

Calhoun  wrote  from  Washington  on  January  10,  1829,  to 
a  Southern  relative :  "  We  have  a  dead  calm  in  politics,  which 
will  continue  till  after  the  arrival  of  the  President  elect.'5  And 
then  went  on  that,  despite  much  idle  speculation  as  to  the  new 
cabinet,  it  was  a  subject  on  which  Jackson  had  presumably 
not  made  up  his  mind,  "nor  will  he,  if  he  acts  prudently,  till 
he  has  had  an  opportunity  of  seeing  the  whole  ground.  .  .  . 

2  Speech  on  bill  to  reduce  the  duties,  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  52,  53. 
Speech   on   Bill   to   repeal    Force   Act.     "Works,"   Vol.    II,   pp.   394-396". 
"Autobiography/'  pp.  35-37,  quoted  ante,  p.  388. 

3  Letter  of  July  I,  1828,  to  Duff  Green,  printed  in  Niles's  "  Register," 
Vol.  XXXV,  p.  61,  and  quoted  ante,  p.  372. 

*  Letter  in  Blair  Collection  of  Jackson  papers,  Library  of  Congress, 


388  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C  CALHOUN 

I  am  not  altogether  without  hope,  if  Genl.  Jackson  takes  a 
correct  general  view  of  his  position,  and  places  an  able  sound 
man  at  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Department,  but  that  some- 
thing like  justice  may  be  done  to  us." 

Jackson  arrived  in  Washington  on  February  nth,5  and  it 
was  not  long  ere  his  cabinet  was  selected.  Indeed,  one  mem- 
ber at  least  had  probably  been  fixed  upon  (subject  to  his 
acceptance)  before  that  date.  J.  A.  Hamilton6  evidently 
thought  this  was  the  case  as  to  Van  Buren,  and  for  Secretary 
of  War,  also,  the  choice  had  apparently  been  already  nar- 
rowed down  to  either  Eaton  or  White,  in  order  that  the  Presi- 
dent might  "  have  in  his  cabinet  one  old  friend  on  whom  he 
could  always  rely." 

Some  leading  men  were  called  to  confer  with  Jackson  upon 
the  subject,  but  they  found  his  mind  already  pretty  well  made 
up.  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  Hayne,  Drayton,  and  McDuffie 
of  South  Carolina,  and  Archer  of  Virginia,  all  came  by  in- 
vitation on  February  i8th,  and  urged  Langdon  Cheves  for  the 
Treasury,  but  were  told  very  positively  that  Ingham  was  to 
have  that  place,  nor  would  Jackson  listen  to  the  suggestion 
they  then  made  of  Louis  McLane  of  Delaware.  They  went 
off  in  a  high  state  of  wrath  at  finding  that  they  had  been  asked 
more  as  a  matter  of  form  than  with  any  real  idea  of  con- 
ference.7 It  is  noteworthy  that  these  South  Carolinians  were 

•J.  Q.  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  101.  Niles's  "Register/'  Vol. 
XXXV,  pp.  401,  409.  Bassett's  "Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  p.  409.  These  authori- 
ties prove  beyond  doubt  that  the  nth  was  the  actual  day  of  his  arrival. 
It  was  that  on  which  the  electoral  vote  was  counted.  J.  A.  Hamilton 
says  in  his  "  Reminiscences,"  p.  89,  that  the  arrival  was  on  the  I2th,  while 
Parton  ("Jackson,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  321)  fixes  it  as  about  the  9th  or  loth; 
but,  they  are  evidently  in  error.  In  the  end  of  January,  a  story  of  Jack- 
son's death  was  circulating  in  Washington,  and  Webster  wrote  to  Joseph 
Hopkinson  on  the  30th :  "The  rumour  of  General  Jackson's  death  has 
subsided.  My  own  private  opinion,  however,  [word  illegible]  is,  that 
he  is  very  ill,  and  I  have  doubt  whether  he  will  ever  reach  this  place." 
Letter  in  Hopkinson  Collection  in  possession  of  Edward  Hopkinson, 
Esq.,  of  Philadelphia. 

6 "  Reminiscences."  p.  89.  J.  A.  Hamilton  wrote  Van  Buren,  as  early 
as  February  21,  of  "the  cabinet  as  determined,"  and  of  Calhoun's  con- 
sequent disappointment  "  Calendar  of  Van  Buren  Papers,"  1910,  Library 
of  Congress,  p.  101. 

7  The  delightfully  ebullient  James  Hamilton,  Jr.,  in  writing  an  account 
of  the  interview,  said :  "  I  assure  you,  in  the  words  of  Sir  Anthony  Ab- 
solute, '  I  am  perfectly  cool  —  damn  cool  —  never  half  so  cool  in  my 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  389 

evidently  not  yet  in  unison  with  Calhoun,  and  were  opposing 
the  very  candidate  whom  he  wanted  for  the  Treasury.  They 
expressed  also  to  Jackson  their  approval  of  the  selection  of 
Van  Buren  for  the  State  Department,  though  no  man  could 
have  been  fixed  upon  more  distasteful  to  the  great  Southern 
leader,  with  whom  they  were  destined  soon  to  be  so  closely 
associated.8 

Calhoun,  too,  probably  had  an  interview  by  invitation  with 
the  President-elect  shortly  after  the  latter' s  arrival  in  Washing- 
ton. According  to  J.  A.  Hamilton,  on  this  occasion,  Calhoun 
urged  Tazewell  of  Virginia  for  the  State  Department,  but 
Jackson  intimated  other  intentions.  Hamilton  also  expresses 
the  belief  that  this  was  the  last  interview  Calhoun  had  with 
Jackson  in  regard  to  the  cabinet.9  Hamilton's  recollection 
and  opinions  were,  however,  not  always  accurate,  and  Cal- 
houn wrote  10  publicly  only  some  two  or  three  years  later : 
"  Jackson  never  consulted  me  as  to  the  formation  of  his 
cabinet.  ...  As  he  did  not  consult  me,  I  had  too  much  self- 
respect  ...  to  intrude  my  advice."  Doubtless,  the  meeting 
did  take  place,  and  possibly  something  of  a  general  nature 
was  said  by  Calhoun,  which  Jackson  and  Hamilton  interpreted 
as  advocacy  of  Tazewell,  who  was  from  Virginia.  That  im- 
portant State  was  then  for  the  first  time  left  without  a  repre- 
sentative in  the  cabinet,  and  this  was  a  doubtful  party  policy. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Calhoun's  friends  were  actively  in 
favor  of  Tazewell. 

The  same  partisan  and  not  very  reliable  J.  A.  Hamilton 
writes  further  that  "  Calhoun  and  his  friends  made  a  desper- 
ate effort  to  induce  the  President  to  employ  such  men  in  his 
cabinet  as  would  give  them  the  control  of  the  Government. 
The  game  was  "  Tazewell,  State ;  Ingham,  Treasury ;  Berrien, 
Attorney  General,  and  John  McLean  of  Ohio,  War.11  How- 
ever much  or  little  truth  there  may  be  in  this  statement  of  a 

life.'"    Letter  to  Van  Buren  in  Van  Buren  MSS.,  quoted  in  Bassett's 
"  Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  p.  416- 

8  Ibid.,  pp.  412,  415. 

9  "  Reminiscences,"  pp.  100,  101. 

10  Reply  to  Eaton,  printed  in  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  "  Appendix,"  p.  443. 
11 "  Reminiscences,"  p.  91. 


390  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

supporter  of  Van  Buren,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Calhoun  was 
at  heart  strongly  opposed  to  the  selection  of  Van  Buren  and 
Eaton,12  and  that  his  friends  tried  hard  to  prevent  them  both. 
Van  Buren  was,  in  Calhoun's  opinion,  largely  responsible  for 
the  Act  of  1828,  and  Eaton  had  voted  in  its  favor  in  the  Senate. 
The  opposition  to  Eaton,  so  Parton  writes,  "  the  President 
considered  very  unkind,"  as  Eaton  was  his  personal  friend; 
he  thought,  too,  that  Calhoun  could  have  stopped  it,  though 
he  had  no  proof  that  the  latter  was  personally  concerned.  X  In 
the  process  of  cabinet-making,  if  not  sooner,  it  is  thus  very 
evident  that  feeling  had  begun  to  crop  up  between  Jackson 
and  Calhoun. 

Van  Buren  hesitated  for  a  time  to  accept  the  office  tendered 
him  and  was  strongly  advised  against  doing  so  by  Louis  Mc- 
Lane  of  Delaware.  J.  A.  Hamilton,  on  the  other  hand,  ad- 
vised him  to  accept,  writing  that  Calhoun  was  certainly  disap- 
pointed and  "  now  hopes  that  Jackson  may  be  thrown  into 
his  arms  by  your  refusal.'Xjn  a  few  days  Van  Buren  signified 
his  acceptance,  thus  reaching  a  conclusion  that  was  destined  to 
have  a  vast  influence  on  his  career  and  that  of  Calhoun.u— It- 
seems  that  his  friends  much  feared  the  latter's  influence,  but 
the  result  of  the  struggle  was  that  the  cabinet  was  decidedly 
a  Van  Buren  one,  and  Calhoun  had  but  two  friends  in  it  — 
Ingham  and  John  McLean.  The  latter  of  these,  moreover, 
resigned  almost  at  once  to  accept  an  appointment  to  the  Su- 
preme Bench  and  was  replaced  by  W.  T.  Barry,  who  was 
not  at  all  a  Calhoun  supporter.13 

12  For  Calhoun's  opinion  as  to  the  appointment  of  Van  Buren,  see  his 
speech  on  the  Force  Bill  in  "Works,"  Vol.  II,  p.  216;  and  Eaton's  vote 
for  the  tariff  bill  was  quite  enough,  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  52,  53.  Dray- 
ton  was  urged  for  the  War  Office,  but  it  is  not  clear1  in  whose  interest. 
Letter  of  J.  A.  Hamilton  to  Van  Buren,  February  19,  1829,  in  Calendar 
of  Papers  of  Martin  Van  Buren,  1910,  Library  of  Congress,  p.  101. 
Drayton,  it  seems,  was  later  offered  the  War  Office,  at  the  time  of  the 
break-up  of  the  cabinet,  John  Quincy  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  IX,  p.  182. 

13Bassett's  "Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  410,  411,  417,  418,  419.  J.  A.  Ham- 
ilton ("Reminiscences,"  pp.  100,  101)  thought  the  transfer  of  McLean 
to  the  Supreme  Bench  a  stunning  blow  to  Calhoun,  and  evidently  was 
delighted  at  the  move.  On  the  selection  of  ..the  cabinet  in  general,  see 
J.  A.  Hamilton's  "  Reminiscences,"  pp.  89-101 ;  Parton's  "  Jackson,"  Vol. 
Ill,  pp.  321-31 ;  Bassett's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  40^-19.  The  last  named 
author  has  used  very  extensively  the  Jackson  and  Van  Buren  MSS.  in 
the  Library  of  Congress. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  391 

Thus  Calhoun  was  far  from  likely  to  have  much  power 
under  the  new  administration.  With  its  leading  member, 
Van  Buren,  his  relations  were  already  strained  by  prior  con- 
tests, and  the  two  men  were  now  rivals  not  only  in  the  struggle 
for  influence  with  the  new  President  but  for  the  succession 
as  well.  Adams  was  told  14  on  March  19,  1829,  by  a  Senator 
that  there  was  already  great  bitterness  between  their  partisans, 
and  Maxcy,  while  writing  Calhoun  in  July  that  Jackson  had 
satisfied  him  of  his  desire  to  be  impartial  between  them,  added 
that  the  fact  of  all  the  conspicuous  appointments  since  that  of 
Ingham  going  to  Van  Buren's  friends  made  upon  the  public 
quite  a  different  impression.  A  very  bitter  quarrel,  too,  had 
broken  out  at  that  time  in  regard  to  some  printing  patronage 
between  Duff  Green  of  the  Telegraph  and  Ingham  of  the 
Treasury,  which  Maxcy  had  been  trying  without  success  to  ap- 
pease.15 

The  Southerners  were  inspired  with  some  hope  by  Jack- 
son's inaugural  address,  which  favored  "  a  strict  and  faithful 
economy  "  and  on  the  burning  issue  of  the  tariff  said  that 
"  the  great  interests  of  agriculture,  commerce  and  manu- 
factures should  be  equally  favored  and  that  perhaps  the  only 
exception  to  this  rule  should  consist  in  the  peculiar  encourage- 
ment of  any  products  of  either  of  them  that  may  be  found  es- 
sential to  our  national  independence/'  The  very  first  mes- 
sage, however,  dashed  these  hopes.  Vague  and  noncommittal 
on  the  tariff,  it  was  distinctly  in  favor  of  distributing  the  sur- 
plus revenue, —  after  payment  of  the  debt, —  among  the  States. 
This  was,  to  the  Southerners,  a  fatal  policy,  as  it  promised  to 
perpetuate  the  tariff  system,  by  furnishing  a  means  of  em- 
ploying the  surplus.  They  had  indeed,  at  Calhoun's  advice, 
fixed  on  the  extinction  of  the  debt  as  the  time  until  which  they 
would  wait,  before  deciding  finally  what  course  to  pursue. 
The  idea  of  distribution  was  not  new,  but  had  been  advocated 
in  the  Senate  at  a  prior  session  by  Dickerson  of  New  Jersey 

i*"  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  116. 

15  "Calhoun  Correspondence,"  Maxcy's  letters  of  June  i  and  July  4, 
1829,  pp.  810,  814.  A  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Charleston 
"  Courier  "  wrote,  on  December  2oth,  of  the  divergence  between  the  Van 
Buren  and  Calhoun  interests.  "Courier"  of  December  29,  1829. 


392  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

and  had  at  once  excited  the  apprehension  of  Calhoun.16 
Once  more,  Southern  hopes  were  aroused  by  the  veto  of 
the  Maysville  Road  Bill,  on  May  27,  1830,  during  the  first 
session  of  Congress  under  Jackson,  for  the  South  always  felt 
that,  if  the  expenditures  were  reduced,  the  temptation  to  main- 
tain the  tariff  would  be  lessened.  Hayne,  in  his  speech  at  the 
Charleston  Dinner  on  July  4,  1830,  spoke  of  the  veto  as  being 
"  to  the  Southern  States  the  first  dawning  of  returning 
hope  " ; 17  but  the  roseate  hue  did  not  last  long.  Within  a  few 
months,  Jackson's  second  message  (December,  1830)  spoke 
again  most  distinctly  in  favor  of  distributing  the  surplus  reve- 
nue among  the  States,  while  a  vague  mist  still  enveloped  the 
sentences  on  the  tariff.  It  should  be  changed,  he  wrote ;  some 
of  the  rates  were  too  high,  and  duties  had  been  placed  on 
goods  for  the  manufacture  of  which  the  country  was  not  ripe. 
Here  was  probably  poultice  for  injured  Southern  supporters, 
but  the  chalice  was  poisoned  for  others  by  the  distinct  opinion 
added, —  that  the  tariff  laws  were  constitutional. 

Some  efforts  had  been  made  at  the  prior  session  to  change 
the  tariff.  After  Mallary  had  reported  on  January  5,  1830, 
from  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  that  it  was  inexpedient 
to  make  any  change,18  McDuffie  from  the  Ways  and  Means 
brought  in  a  bill  on  February  5  to  reduce  the  tariff.19  He 
was  unable,  however,  to  get  it  considered,  and  it  was  almost 
at  once  laid  on  the  table  without  discussion.  All  his  proposals, 
moreover,  to  amend  the  bill,  which  was  later  reported  from 
the  Committee  on  Manufactures  (mainly  an  administrative 
measure  but  containing  some  increases  of  rates),  were  re- 

16  "  Autobiography,"  p.  35.  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  Ill  (1826-27), 
pp.  209-223. 

"Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XXXVIII,  p.  379.  Prof.  Bassett  thinks 
("Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  p.  490)  that  the  veto  was  a  hard  blow  to  Calhoun, 
and  quotes  from  Van  Buren's  MS.  autobiography  a  sentence  seeming  to 
take  the  same  view;  but  by  this  time  Calhoun  was  probably  no  longer 
in  favor  of  internal  improvements,  and  his  entirely  private  letter  of 
Sept.  n,  1830,  to  Maxcy,  when  speaking  of  the  Maysville  Road  Veto, 
seems  to  approve  it  and  certainly  does  not  suggest  a  regret  at  the  defeat 
of  internal  improvements.  See  infra,  pp.  417-419. 

18  House  Journal,  First  Session,  Twenty-First  Congress,  p.  130.     Poole's 
"Descriptive  Catalogue,"  &c.,  p.  214.     Charleston  "Courier,"  January  12, 
1830. 

19  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  VI,  Part  i,  1829-30,  pp.  555,  556. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  393 

jected.  At  this  stage,  and  before  the  final  vote,  he  and  the 
South  Carolina  members  generally  withdrew  from  the 
House.20.  This  is  a  petulant  mode  of  indicating  feeling,  which 
has  rarely  had  much  success,  and  the  Charleston  Courier  said 
in  this  instance  again  that  its  effect  was  less  than  expected. 
The  bill  passed  finally  and  became  a  law.21 

Not  long  after  Jackson's  inauguration  there  had  broken  out 
a  public  quarrel  of  a  character,  which  has  happily  been  rare 
in  our  short  history.  Questions  of  female  virtue  have  broken 
more  than  one  cabinet  in  some  parts  of  the  world,  but  I  think 
Mrs.  Eaton  stands  much  alone  among  us.  Peggy  O'Neil, 
later  Mrs.  Timberlake,  and  then  the  wife  of  Jackson's  Secre- 
tary of  War,  John  H.  Eaton,  did  not  attain  the  standard  of 
reputation  laid  down  as  necessary  for  Caesar's  wife,  and  the 
Washington  dames  of  1829-30  would  have  none  of  her. 
Jackson  espoused  the  cause  of  his  friend's  wife  with  all  the 
ardor  of  his  Scotch-Irish  nature  and  did  his  best  to  force  her 
acceptance,  but  he  met  his  match  in  the  gentle  sex,  when  he 
trespassed  on  a  region  they  look  upon  as  peculiarly  their  own. 
Mrs.  Eaton  was  rarely  received.  The  bachelor  Van  Buren 
was  able  to  please  the  General  in  this  particular  to  the  top  of 
his  bent,  but  the  married  Calhoun  was  in  another  situation. 

Mrs.  Smith  wrote,22  early  the  next  winter: 

One  woman  has  made  sad  havoc  here;  to  be,  or  not  to  be, 
her  friend  is  the  test  of  Presidential  favor.  Mr.  Van  Buren 
sided  with  her  and  is  consequently  the  right-hand  man,  the  con- 
stant riding,  walking  and  visiting  companion  [of  the  President]. 
.  .  .  Mr.  Calhoun,  Ingham,  his  devoted  friend,  Branch  and  Ber- 
rien  form  one  party,  the  President,  Van  Buren,  General  Eaton  and 
Mr.  Barry  the  other.  .  .  .  Meanwhile  the  lady  who  caused  this 
division,  is  forced  notwithstanding  the  support  and  favor  of  such 
high  personages  to  withdraw  from  society.  She  is  not  re- 

20  The  Charleston  "  Courier  "  of  May  20,  and  the  "  Mercury  "  of  June 
2,   1830.     I  do  not  find  this  fact  stated  in  the  other  newspapers  of  the 
period  over  which  I  have  looked,  nor  does  it  seem  to  be  mentioned  in 
the   histories   of   the   time.    Drayton  and   Tucker  were   the   only   South 
Carolinians  to  vote  on  the  final  vote.     Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  VI, 
Part  II  (1829-30),  p.  987. 

21  Stanwood's  "  Tariff  Controversies,"  Vol.  I,  p.  364. 

22 Letter  of  January  26,  1830,  to  her  sister.  "First  Forty  Years  of 
Washington  Society,"  p.  310. 


394  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

ceived  in  any  private  parties,  and  since  the  8th  of  January  has  with- 
drawn from  public  assemblies.  At  the  ball  given  on  that  oc- 
casion, she  was  treated  with  such  marked  and  universal  neglect 
and  indignity,  that  she  will  not  expose  herself  again  to  such 
treatment. 

Calhoun  became  very  much  involved  in  this  battle  royal. 
It  seems  that  General  and  Mrs.  Eaton  called  at  his  house  once 
in  his  absence  and  were  of  course  received  by  Mrs.  Calhoun, 
and  the  latter  and  her  husband  had  later  that  day  some  con- 
versation about  Mrs.  Eaton  and  her  relation  to  Washington 
society.  The  next  morning,  Mrs.  Calhoun  told  her  husband 
that  she  would  not  return  the  visit,  as  she  considered  herself 
a  stranger  in  the  capital,  and  that  Mrs.  Eaton  should  open  her 
intercourse  with  ladies  residing  there.  Calhoun  approved  her 
decision,  though  he  foresaw  the  consequent  difficulties  to  him- 
self. In  a  later  public  statement23  detailing  these  facts,  he 
said  that  Mrs.  Calhoun  had  never  called  on  Mrs.  Eaton,  and 
wrote  of  "the  great  victory  that  has  been  achieved,  in  favor 
of  the  morals  of  the  country,  by  the  high-minded  independence 
and  virtue  of  the  ladies  of  Washington."  The  next  winter 
(1830-31)  Mrs.  Calhoun  did  not  come  to  the  capital  at  all, 
and  John  Quincy  Adams  says  she  was  staying  South  so  as 
to  avoid  the  contamination  of  Mrs.  Eaton.24 

The  divine  wrath  of  Jackson  over  this  matter  had  in  it  a 
tinge  of  opera  bouffe;  but  his  irascible  nature  was  much 
impressed  and  the  contest  contributed  largely  to  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  cabinet  a  year  later  and  beyond  doubt  helped  to 

23  Reply  of  Calhoun  to  Eaton,  printed  in  "Works,"  Vol.  VI,  "Ap- 
pendix," pp.  435-445,  and  also  reprinted  from  the  Pendleton  "  Messenger," 
in  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XL,  pp.  178-80.  The  letter  was  due  to  an  as- 
sertion by  Eaton  in  the  public  papers  that  Calhoun  was  at  the  bottom 
of  the  troubles  in  the  cabinet  and  that  he  and  Mrs.  Calhoun  had  at  first 
called  on  Mrs.  Eaton  and  later  refused  to  do  so,  actuated  by  political 
motives.  Calhoun's  letter  is  followed  in  Niles  by  one  from  Rev.  F.  S. 
Evans,  saying  that  four  days  after  Eaton's  marriage,  Calhoun's  car- 
riage drove  up  to  the  door  of  Mr.  O'Neil  (Mrs.  Eaton's  father)  and 
asked  for  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Eaton  and,  they  being  absent,  left  the  cards  of 
Mr.  &  Mrs.  Calhoun;  but  few  will  hesitate  to  accept  Calhoun's  word  to 
the  contrary,  and  his  statement  of  the  well  known  rule  in  Washington 
that  Senators  and  their  families  always  called  on  the  Vice-President 
first  seems  conclusive. 

2* "Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  159. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  395 

prepare  his  mind  for  that  poison  in  regard  to  Calhoun's  past 
actions  which  was  even  then  in  process  of  concoction  by  the 
latter's  enemies. 

Another  highly  important  step  in  the  political  game  of  the 
day  was  the  decision  of  Jackson,  or  rather  of  his  friends, 
that  he  should  run  for  a  second  term.  His  expressions  had 
indicated  that  he  would  not  do  so;  but  before  the  end  of  De- 
cember, 1829,  it  began  to  be  rumored25  that  he  would  again 
be  a  candidate  and  in  the  following  March,  Van  Buren  and 
Major  Lewis  were  working  actively  in  this  direction  and  some 
formal  nominations  of  the  General  were  obtained. 

Lewis  thought  that  he  was  the  originator  of  this  move  and 
was  apparently  largely  inspired  thereto  by  dislike  of  Calhoun 
and  the  desire  to  defeat  him.  He  wrote  letters,  about  March, 
1830,  to  members  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature,  requesting 
them  to  sign  a  form  of  letter  to  Jackson  (which  he  enclosed) 
asking  him  to  stand  again,  and  urged  the  absolute  necessity 
of  Jackson's  endorsement 26 

...  at  the  next  meeting  of  their  Legislature  as  the  most  ef- 
fectual if  not  the  only  means  of  defeating  the  machinations  of 
Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  friends,  who  were  resolved  on  forcing  Gen- 
eral Jackson  from  the  presidential  chair  after  one  term.  The 
peculiar  position  of  the  Vice  President,  it  was  believed,  made 
this  necessary.  He  was  then  serving  out  his  second  term,  and 
as  none  of  his  predecessors  had  ever  served  more  than  8  years, 
his  friends  thought  it  might  be  objected  to  and  perhaps  would  be 
injurious  to  him,  to  be  presented  to  the  nation  for  a  third  term. 
...  It  would  not  do  for  him  to  retire  to  the  shades  of  private 
life  for  4  long  years.  He  could  not  run  for  a  third  term,  and 
they  dare  not  run  him  in  opposition  to  General  Jackson.  .  .  . 
The  scheme  worked  admirably,  and  in  a  few  months  the  hopes 
of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  partisans  were  completely  withered,  and 
the  idea  of  driving  General  Jackson  from  the  field  abandoned  al- 
together. 

In  such  struggles  as  this,  Calhoun  was,  in  the  writer's  opin- 
ion, but  a  child  in  opposition  to  politicians  of  the  mould  of 

25  Charleston  "  Courier "  of  December  29,   1829. 

28 Letter  to  Parton,  printed  in  "Life  of  Jackson,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  299-301. 


396  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Van  Buren  and  Lewis.  He  could  not  play  upon  the  mere 
passions  of  the  multitude  and  had  no  comprehension  of  the 
burrowing  schemes  such  men  are  forever  indulging  in  to 
attain  far-off  as  well  as  near-by  designs.  Despite  his  often 
marvelous  power  of  forecasting  the  consequences  of  deep,  un- 
derlying causes,  there  seem  to  be  several  instances  in  his 
career, —  one  conspicuous  one  now  not  far  ahead, —  in  which 
he  failed  entirely  to  foresee  results  that  were  plain  enough  to 
them,  and  it  may  probably  be  added  that  he  had  no  very  full 
understanding  of  the  nature  of  the  ordinary  man's  mind  in 
some  of  its  workings.  Nor  must  we  forget  that  the  little 
god  of  earth  is  after  all  the  pawn  by  which  the  public  man 
must  attain  his  ends. 

In  the  instance  we  are  now  concerned  with,  Calhoun  still 
thought,  as  late  as  May,  1830,  that  it  was  "  perfectly  un- 
certain, whether  Genl.  Jackson  will  offer  again  or  not.  Some 
who  regard  their  own  interest  more  than  his  just  fame  are 
urging  him  to  offer."  27  And  on  March  30,  at  the  very  time 
when  the  steps  looking  to  his  own  defeat  were  being  launched 
with  such  success,  he  wrote  to  Gouverneur  that  the  latter  un- 
derstood fully 

.  .  .  The  game,  which  is  playing  in  a  certain  quarter.  ...  It 
is,  however,  not  calculated  to  do  those  engaged  in  it  any  service. 
I  am  surprised  that  one  so  artful  as  the  author  [doubtless  mean- 
ing Van  Buren]  and  who  occupies  so  favorable  a  position  for 
his  operations,  should  so  completely  fail.  His  strength,  which 
was  never  great,  has  been  steadily  declining  all  the  session,  and 
he  may  be  now  pronounced  feeble.  I  see  no  cause  to  fear  him, 
unless  of  enfeebling  the  administration  by  his  devious  course. 
...  It  is  an  object  of  ambition  with  us  to  carry  the  General 
through  with  glory. 

The  writer  then  went  on  to  add,  with  reference  to  the 
nominations  to  office  pending  in  the  Senate,  that  the  accusation 
that  delay  had  been  due  to  his  friends  was  utterly  false,  and 
expressed  his  gratification  at  Swartwout's  confirmation.28 

27  "  Correspondence,"  p.  273. 

28  Ibid.,  pp.  271,  272,  and  Bulletin  of  the  &ew  York  Public  Library, 
Vol.  Ill  (1899),  pp.  331,  332.    This  letter  was  dated  March  30,  the  very 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  397 

Probably  these  words  reflect  some  still  lingering  effort  to  please 
Jackson,  who  was  full  of  wrath  at  the  slow  confirmation  of 
his  many  new  appointments.  It  will  ere  long  be  seen  how 
soon  there  was  a  rude  awakening  from  the  almost  patroniz- 
ing desire  to  bring  the  General  through  with  glory. 

The  Hay ne- Webster  debate  occurred  during  the  latter  half 
of  January  of  this  same  year, — 1830.  Calhoun  had,  of 
course,  no  direct  part  in  the  discussion,  but  has  often  been 
said  29  to  have  followed  it  with  interest  and  even  to  have  shown 
approval  repeatedly  during  Hayne's  speeches  and  to  have  sent 
notes  and  suggestions  to  him.  It  is  hard  to  find  any  evidence 
to  this  effect  from  an  eyewitness,  but  approval  may  probably 
be  assumed,  and  Benton  tells  us  30  that  Hayne  was  "  under- 
stood to  be  speaking  the  sentiments  of  the  Vice-President." 

Troubles  were  already  fast  thickening  about  Calhoun's  great 
ambition,  and  the  events  of  this  debate  added  materially  to 
them.  Adams  writes  31  that  shortly  after  it  was  over,  Cal- 
houn was  warned  by  White  of  Florida  of  "  the  injudiciousness 
of  the  violent  attacks  of  his  partisans  against  New  England; 
and  that  Van  Buren  was  taking  advantage  of  it,  and  might 
have  the  whole  Eastern  influence  thrown  into  his  scale  by  it, 
which  otherwise  Calhoun  might  expect  for  himself.  He  said 
Calhoun  seemed  to  be  exceedingly  at  a  loss  what  to  do;  said 
that  he  had  been  obliged  by  his  position  to  take  the  lead  in 
the  opposition  to  Mrs.  Eaton;  that  he  did  not  know  what 

day  on  which  Van  Buren's  organ  announced  that  Jackson  was  again  a 
candidate  (Schouler's  "United  States,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  497).  Lewis's 
machinations  had  begun  ten  days  earlier. 

29  See,  e.g.,  Curtis's  "  Webster,"  Vol.  I,  p.  365.  Sargent's  "  Public  Men 
and  Events  "  (the  author  of  which  does  not  write  as  if  he  had  been 
present),  Vol.  I,  p.  172. 

3°  "  Thirty  Years'  View,"  Vol.  I,  p.  138. 

31 "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  195.  Others  also  saw  at  once  this  phase  of 
the  matter;  and  Judge  Richard  Peters  wrote  to  Joseph  Hopkinson,  about 
January  24:  "There  has  been  going  on  in  the  Senate,  and  it  will  proceed 
to-morrow,  a  most  angry  contest  in  which  Hayne  and  Benton  are  in 
array  against  Webster.  ...  It  grows  out  of  the  question  of  the  Western 
lands.  .  .  .  There  never  was  a  course  so  ruinous  as  that  which  is  now 
pursued  by  the  Calhoun  party  in  this  violence  towards  Webster.  All 
their  hold  in  the  East  will  be  broken  down  by  it,  and  Van  Buren  looks 
upon  their  conduct  with  the  highest  satisfaction.  The  whole  East  will 
support  Webster."  .  .  .  The  letter  is  dated  "  Sunday  evening,"  and  post- 
marked :  "  City  of  Washington,  Jany.  24th."  Hopkinson  Collection,  as 
above. 


398  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

things  were  coming  to,"  and  so  on.  Possibly  the  advice  given 
him  was  good ;  but  the  ultimate  truth  is  that  he  was  powerless, 
and  the  causes  that  were  driving  him  away  from  all  Northern 
support  and  to  the  inevitable  loss  of  the  Presidency  were  as 
resistless  as  fate.  He  and  a  hundred  thousand  others  of  the 
wisest  of  the  sons  of  men  were  but  autumn  leaves  in  a  gale 
to  the  long-grown  trend  of  public  events. 

The  Jefferson  Birthday  Dinner  on  April  13,  1830,  furnished 
-another  similar  portent.  Designed  of  course  by  the  South 
to  add  the  strength  of  Jefferson's  great  name  to  their  cause, 
and  perhaps  in  the  hope  of  enlisting  Jackson,  too,  it  was 
at  once  turned  to  ashes  on  their  lips  by  the  famous  toast  the 
latter  gave.  It  is  the  fashion  to-day  to  belittle  Jackson  be- 
cause of  his  faults;  but  the  man  who  could  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  hour  and  by  absolutely  secret  determination  in 
advance  so  catch  the  best  popular  feeling  by  that  toast  as  to 
carry  with  him  the  whole  North  and  a  good  fraction  of  the 
South  occupies  far  too  high  a  place  for  most  of  us  to  pick  at, 
and  there  is  more  than  one  like  instance  in  Jackson's  career. 

"  Our  Federal  Union :  it  must  be  preserved," 32  rang  like 
a  clarion  note  from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the  other,  and 
has  ever  since  entirely  dwarfed  Calhoun's  answering  toast, 
admirably  put  from  his  viewpoint,  but  far  too  long,  as  well 
as  too  much  hedged  about,  and  necessarily  quite  lacking  any 
note  to  stir  the  blood  to  patriotic  fervor : 

"  The  Union, —  next  to  our  Liberty  most  dear.  May  we  all 
remember  that  it  can  only  be  preserved  by  respecting  the 
rights  of  the  States  and  distributing  equally  the  benefit  and  the 
burthen  of  the  Union." 

32  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  was  the  actual  form  of  the  toast.  It  did 
not  contain  in  its  last  clause  the  words  "  and  shall  be."  Prof.  Bassett 
("Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  p.  555)  shows  this  conclusively  from  Van  Buren's 
MS.  autobiography  in  the  Van  Buren  Papers  in  the  Library  of  Congress, 
if  even  there  could  otherwise  have  been  doubt.  It  was  written  down  be- 
fore the  dinner,  after  consultation  between  Jackson  and  Van  Buren.  In 
proposing  it,  Jackson  inadvertently  omitted  the  word  "  federal,"  but  added 
it  at  the  suggestion  of  Hayne.  The  Charleston  "  Courier "  of  April  28, 
however,  gives  the  toast  with  the  addition  of  the  words  "and  shall  be," 
and  adds  that  the  Philadelphia  "  Sentinel,"  a  warm  and  original  Jackson 
paper,  maintained  that  the  "  Telegraph  "  was  in  error  in  reporting  it  in 
the  form  given  in  the  text. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  399 

Still  another  influence  was  tending  to  bring  about  the 
shipwreck  of  Calhoun's  ambition.  Crawford  was  an  evil 
genius  to  him,  and  never  forgave  his  young  rival  the  rebuffs 
of  1816  and  1824.  A  man  with  all  the  bitter  vindictiveness 
of  a  politician,  Crawford  is  perhaps  not  unfairly  described  33 
as  being  "deadly  as  a  viper,"  and  he  not  only  pursued  Cal- 
houn  to  the  end  but  had  at  last  a  chief  part  in  preventing 
the  South  Carolina  leader  from  attaining  the  Presidency.  A 
strong  effort  was  also  made  by  him  in  1828  to  secure  his  old 
enemy's  defeat  for  the  second  office  but  he  failed  entirely  to 
prevent  the  nomination,  even  in  Georgia  as  well  as  in  his  own 
native  State  of  Virginia.  He  did  finally  succeed  in  the  elec- 
toral college  of  Georgia  in  inducing  seven  of  the  nine  electors 
to  cast  their  votes  for  William  Smith  instead  of  Calhoun  for 
Vice-President ;  but  this  spiteful  fling  was  the  measure  of  his 
success  at  that  time,  and  it  had  of  course  no  influence  on  the 
general  result.  The  object  of  these  attacks  was  long  fully 
aware  of  them.84 

At  about  the  date  of  these  efforts  and  for  some  time  earlier, 

33  Schouler's  "  United  States,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  427. 

3*  Calhoun's  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  258,  259.  John  Quincy  Adams's 
"Memoirs,"  Vol.  VII,  p.  427;  Calhoun's  "Works,"  Vol.  VI,  "Appendix," 
PP.  384,  385,  referring  to  Crawford's  letter  of  October,  1828,  to  Major 
Barry,  asking  him  to  try  and  defeat  Calhoun.  Crawford's  letter  of  Oc- 
tober 21,  1828,  to  Van  Buren  calendared  in  the  Library  of  Congress' 
"Calendar  (1910)  of  the  Papers  of  Martin  Van  Buren,"  and  speaking  of 
the  impossibility  of  Georgia's  voting  for  Calhoun  for  Vice-President  as 
well  as  promising  measures  (evidently  meaning  the  betrayal  of  Calhoun's 
alleged  proposal  in  1818  to  arrest  Jackson)  to  prevent  Jackson  from 
appointing  him  to  the  cabinet,  in  case  of  such  defeat.  In  this  letter 
Crawford  shows  that  he  was  then  striving  to  have  Macon  nominated  in- 
stead of  Calhoun ;  while  at  another  time  he  was  urging  Clinton-Parton's 
"Jackson,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  132,  133;  Bassett's  "Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  p.  405. 
Cobb's  "  Leisure  Labors,"  pp.  238-47,  says  that  Crawford  began  to  write 
to  this  general  effect  to  Jackson's  friends  as  early  as  "  in  the  fall  and  win- 
ter of  1827,"  and  that  the  letters  were  shown  to  Jackson  but  produced  no 
result:  see  e.g.,  his  letter  of  December  14,  1827,  to  Alfred  Balch,  in 
"Calhoun's  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  "Appendix,"  pp.  356-58,  and  the  above- 
mentioned  one  of  October  to  Barry ;  Parton's  "  Jackson,"  as  above  and 
"  Jackson's  Exposition,"  in  "  Benton's  View,"  Vol.  I,  p.  174.  In  the  Balch 
letter,  Crawford  also  wrote:  "Jackson  ought  to  know,  and,  if  he  does 
not,  he  shall  know,  that,  at  the  Calhoun  caucus  in  Columbia,  the  term 
'  Military  Chieftain '  was  bandied  about  more  flippantly  than  by  Henry 
Clay,  and  that  the  family  friends  of  Mr.  Calhoun  were  most  active  in 
giving  it  currency."  Presumably,  this  refers  to  Calhoun's  nomination  for 
the  Presidency  on  November  29,  182*3,  after  the  death  of  Lowndes,  ante, 
- 298. 


400  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Calhoun  was  engaged  in  correspondence  with  Monroe  and  oth- 
ers in  the  already  mentioned  effort  to  prevent  enemies  from 
embroiling  Monroe  with  Jackson  in  regard  to  a  question 
whether  the  former  had  fully  supported  the  latter  during  his 
Mississippi  campaign.  This  came  later  to  touch  upon  Mon- 
roe's conduct  in  regard  to  Jackson  during  the  Seminole  cam- 
paign also.  One  letter  of  Monroe  to  Calhoun  had  been  pur- 
loined from  the  latter's  papers  and  shown  to  Jackson  and  was 
thought  to  evince  hostility  on  the  part  of  Monroe,  but  Cal- 
houn traced  the  matter  out  with  much  difficulty  and,  by  ex- 
hibiting the  whole  correspondence  to  Jackson's  friends  and 
Jackson  himself,  succeeded  for  the  time  in  appeasing  the  lat- 
ter's wrath  and  inducing  him  to  see  that  Monroe  had  in  reality 
been  his  friend.35 

Little  did  Calhoun  at  first  know  that  at  the  very  time 
of  this  correspondence  whisperings  were  flitting  about  be- 
tween Crawford  and  other  enemies  of  his  which  were  ere  long 
to  lead  to  a  far  more  deadly  outburst  against  himself  on 
the  part  of  Jackson.  This  intrigue,  like  most,  is  involved  in 
some  obscurities ;  but  is  fairly  clear  in  its  main  outlines.  It  is 
all  originally  traceable  to  Crawford,  but  probably  began  soon 
to  be  used  by  others  for  their  own  purposes.  In  January, 
1828,  while  Calhoun  was  engaged  in  the  just-mentioned  efforts 
on  Monroe's  behalf,  he  had  some  suspicion  that  he  was  to  be 
included  in  the  attacks  and  wrote  Monroe 36  that  he  hoped  "  to 
be  able  to  trace  the  whole  affair,  but  I  am  strongly  inclined 
to  think  it  was  intended  to  fall  on  both  of  us."  And  in  the 
spring  of  that  year  he  was  vaguely  informed  that  efforts  were 
making  at  Nashville  to  injure  him,  but  paid  little  heed  to  the 
rumors.37 

These  early  efforts  of  Crawford  were  quite  unsuccessful,  and 
Jackson  refused  to  believe  the  charges  when  they  were  called 
to  his  attention.  But  the  stories  were  far  too  rich  a  morsel 
to  fail  of  sprouting  some  day.  Jackson  went  with  a  party, 

35Calhoun's  "Correspondence,"  pp.  242,  2*43,  254-256,  260-263,  266; 
"Writings  of  James  Monroe,"  Vol.  VII,  pp.  I37~43,  156-161,  173,  *74> 
175-177. 

a"  Calhoun's  "  Correspondence,"  p.  256. 

37"Calhoun's  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  "Appendix,"  p.  354. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  401 

of  which  Lewis  and  J.  A.  Hamilton  were  members,  to  attend 
at  New  Orleans  the  celebration  of  his  famous  battle,  on 
January  8,  1828.  On  the  way  down  the  river,  there  was  of 
course  much  talk  among  these  friends  in  regard  to  the  coming 
Presidential  campaign,  and  Hamilton,  who  was,  with  Van 
Buren  and  the  New  York  leaders  in  general,  an  old  supporter 
of  Crawford,  offered  to  visit  the  latter  and  try  to  enlist  his 
influence.  Jackson  was  quite  willing  that  this  should  be  done, 
though  he  still  thought  that  Crawford  had  been  his  chief  op- 
ponent in  Monroe's  cabinet,  during  the  Seminole  campaign 
discussions.  Whether  any  secret  motive  or  special  knowledge 
on  the  part  of  Hamilton  led  to  this  offer  has  never  been 
disclosed,  but  a  highly  suggestive  hint  upon  the  point  will  ap- 
pear shortly. 

Hamilton,  on  his  way  North  again,  went  as  far  as  Sparta, 
Georgia,  in  the  hope  of  seeing  Crawford,  but  learned  that 
he  was  probably  absent  from  home,  and  accordingly  wrote  a 
letter38  from  Savannah  to  John  Forsyth  upon  the  matter 
he  had  in  hand.  The  latter  saw  Crawford  later,  and  wrote 
Hamilton  on  February  8,  1828,  to  say  that  Crawford  stated 
that  Calhoun  and  not  he  was  the  member  of  Monroe's  cabinet, 
who  had  wished  to  arrest  Jackson.39  Some  months  later 
(April  i,  1828)  Lewis  visited  New  York  and  was  shown  this 
letter  by  Hamilton.  There,  however,  in  the  unfathomable 
bosoms  of  these  two  adroit  politicians  lay  hidden  for  a  long 
time  the  secret  of  the  existence  of  this  political  nugget  of 
priceless  value. 

One  other  event,  which  occurred  during  Hamilton's  return 
North,  must  be  mentioned  here.  He  stopped  in  Washing- 
ton and  made  a  friendly  call  on  Calhoun,  during  the  course 
of  which  he  asked  the  latter  in  easy  conversation, —  of  course, 
after  consulting  with  a  friend  as  to  the  propriety  of  his  so 

doing, —  whether  "  at  any  meeting  of  Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet, 

•i 

38  J.  A.  Hamilton's  statement  of  February  22,   1831,  published  in  the 
New  York  "  Evening  Post,"  and  reprinted  in  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XL, 
pp.  41,  42.    His  letter  to  Forsyth  was  dated  January  25,  1828. 

39  Forsyth's  letter  to  Hamilton  of  February  8,  1828,  is  printed  in  Niles's 
"Register,"  Vol.  XL,  p.  45.    See,  also,  letter  of  Crawford  to  a  friend 
in  Shipp's  "  Crawford,"  pp.  208,  209. 


402  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  propriety  of  arresting  General  Jackson  for  anything  done 
by  him  during  the  Seminole  war  had  been  discussed?  To 
which  he  [Calhoun]  replied :  '  Never.  Such  a  measure  was 
not  thought  of,  much  less  discussed/  '  This  was  before  Ham- 
ilton received  the  reply  from  Forsyth.  At  a  later  date  (Feb- 
ruary 25),  but  still  before  Forsyth' s  answer  came  to  hand  on 
February  28,  Hamilton  wrote  from  New  York  for  a  written 
confirmation  of  Calhoun's  verbal  reply,  but  the  latter  was  not 
again  to  be  caught.  He  suspected  by  that  time  that  the  ques- 
tion had  some  connection  with  the  matter  of  the  letter  pur- 
loined from  him  and  the  effort  to  embroil  Monroe  with  Jack- 
son, and  declined  either  to  answer  or  to  be  quoted.40 

If  Hamilton  had  no  actual  knowledge  that  Calhoun  had 
been  connected  with  the  cabinet  suggestion  to  punish  Jack- 
son, perhaps  all  this  would  have  been  unobjectionable,  nor 
does  he  anywhere  drop  a  hint  that  he  already  knew  the  truth 
pretty  well.  Lewis,  too,  tells  the  story  as  if  Hamilton's  offer 
on  the  river  steamer  to  visit  Crawford  had  been  a  sudden  in- 
spiration of  that  gentleman.  Perhaps,  moreover,  Lewis 
thought  this,  for  those  engaged  in  such  matters  hardly  allow 
their  right  hand  to  know  what  their  left  hand  doeth,  let 
alone  tell  others  what  they  are  up  to. 

But  Hamilton  did  apparently  know.  Not  only  would  he 
otherwise  never  have  thought  of  asking  Calhoun,  before 
Forsyth's  answer  came  to  hand,  in  regard  to  the  motion  in  the 
cabinet  to  arrest  Jackson;  but,  more  than  this,  the  Jackson 
papers41  have  since  furnished  strong  evidence  that  he  knew 
well  enough  at  that  very  time,  that  Crawford  had  already  said 

40  Hamilton's    "  Evening    Post "    statement,    ut   supra.    See,    also,    Cal- 
houn's additional  statement  of  February  24,   1831,  in  the  "U.  S.  Tele- 
graph,"   reprinted    in    Niles's    "Register,"    Vol.    XL,   pp.   42-45,^  and   his 
"  Pamphlet."    I  give  Hamilton's  question  and  Calhoun's  answer  in  Hamil- 
ton's words.    Calhoun's  account  is  much  the  same.    He  writes  that  the 
question  was  "whether  any  motion  had  been  made  in  the  cabinet  to  ar- 
rest him    (Jackson).    To   which   I   replied   in   the  negative.    It  may  be 
proper  to  remark  that  no  such  motion  or  any  other  was  made.    The  dis- 
cussion in  reference  to  the  course  that  might  be  pursued  towards  him, 
took  place  on  a  suggestion  of  the  propriety  of  an  inquiry  into  his  con- 
duct, and  my  answer  was  therefore  in  strict  conformity  with  the  facts." 

41  Bassett's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  507,  508,  citing  letter  of  August  10, 
1831,  from  R.  G.  Dunlap  to  Jackson,  in  Library  of  Congress,  and  printed 
in  "American  Historical  Magazine"   (Nashville),  Vol.  IX,  p.  93. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  403 

to  some  one  else,  that  Calhoun  and  not  himself  had  been  hos- 
tile to  Jackson.  Hamilton's  offer  to  visit  Crawford  was  merely 
an  adroit  method  of  securing  evidence  to  that  effect,  and 
perhaps  at  the  same  time  of  screening  some  one  higher  up 
from  being  known  in  the  matter. 

We  must  now  go  back  a  year  or  so,  and  at  least  an  indica- 
tion will  be  found  as  to  who  may  have  been  Hamilton's  original 
informant  and  may  have  desired  to  be  unknown.  In  April, 
1827,  Van  Buren  and  Cambreleng  paid  a  visit  to  Crawford 
at  the  latter's  home.42  They  were  both  old  supporters  of 
Crawford,  both  politicians  to  the  marrow,  and  their  visit  was 
not  for  the  purpose  of  cheering  the  lonely  hours  of  a  much 
broken  old  man.  Politics  was  the  game  they  played  and  the 
outlook  of  the  political  field  at  that  time  was,  beyond  doubt, 
their  frequent  subject  of  conversation.  Indeed,  Crawford 
says  as  much  in  the  letter  referred  to.  A  Presidential  election 
was  only  a  year  and  a  half  ahead,  Jackson  far  in  the  lead 
as  the  candidate  of  the  opposition  to  Adams,  and  Calhoun, 
hated  of  Crawford  and  feared  by  Van  Buren,  very  prominent 
for  the  second  office.  Only  a  few  months  later,  moreover, 
Crawford  was  actively  engaged  in  correspondence  far  and 
wide  in  his  effort  to  prevent  the  nominaton  of  Calhoun. 

It  is  almost  inconceivable  under  these  circumstances  that 
Crawiord  should  not  have  told  those  highly  distinguished 
visitors  his  alleged  true  version  of  the  events  in  Monroe's 
cabinet.  It  seems  that  in  every  probability  here  is  the  source 
whence,  directly  or  by  subterranean  burrowings,  the  knowledge 
of  this  great  secret  came  originally  to  Hamilton's  ears.  Van 
Buren's  later  denials  of  all  knowledge  of  the  intrigue  will  be 
mentioned  hereafter. 

The  existence  of  Crawford's  letter  was  long  kept  unknown, 
and  few,  if  any,  others  were  told  of  it,  until  not  only  Jackson's 
election  but  some  eight  months  after  he  became  President. 
In  November,  1829,  however,  at  a  dinner  given  by  him  to 
Monroe,  the  matter  advanced  a  step, —  and  a  very  important 
one.  Lewis,  Eaton,  and  Marshal  Tench  Ringgold  were  pres- 

42  Crawford's  letter  of  December  14,  1827,  to  Alfred  Balch,  printed  in 
Calhoun's  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  "  Appendix,"  pp.  356,  357. 


404  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

ent,  and  the  latter  told  Lewis  that  in  the  Seminole  discussion 
Monroe  had  been  Jackson's  only  friend.  Lewis  expressed 
great  surprise,  and  with  the  feline  innocence43  of  his  class 
drew  Ringgold  on  by  saying  that  Calhoun  was  always  under- 
stood to  have  favored  Jackson.  Later  in  the  evening,  when 
Eaton,  Lewis  and  Jackson  were  left  alone,  the  two  former  had 
some  talk  as  to  the  earlier  conversation  with  Ringgold.  Jack- 
son, interrupted  in  his  reverie  under  the  inspiration  of  a  pipe 
and  wreaths  of  smoke,  asked  ere  long  what  they  were  talking 
about,  and  was  told  what  Ringgold  had  said.  He  naturally 
expressed  great  surprise. 

Evidently,  the  psychological  moment  had  at  length  arrived. 
Lewis  at  once  told  Jackson  of  the  Forsyth  letter,  and  the  conse- 
quence was  that  the  very  next  day  this  equerry  was  dispatched 
to  New  York  to  secure  the  precious  document  and  show  it  to 
Jackson.  Hamilton  had  some  conscientious  scruples,  how- 
ever, and  thought  that  he  ought  first  to  obtain  Forsyth's  per- 
mission. To  this,  Jackson  assented,  and  as  Hamilton  and 
Forsyth  were  both  soon  to  be  in  Washington  at  the  opening  of 
the  session,  the  latter  was  spoken  to  there,  but  he  in  turn 
had  scruples  and  said  that  Crawford  should  be  asked  about 
it.  So  this  step  also  was  taken,  but  it  remains  buried  in 
mystery  why  all  the  months  from  early  December,  1829,  to 
April  1 6,  1830,  were  allowed  to  pass  by  before  Forsyth's  let- 
ter of  inquiry  was  sent  to  Crawford.  This  was  three  days 
after  the  events  of  the  Jefferson  Anniversary  Dinner,  and 
perhaps  here  again  we  may  find  a  psychological  moment. 
Crawford's  answer  was  written  April  30  and  was  handed  over 
to  Jackson  on  May  I2.44 

43 "See  you  now; 

Your  bait  of  falsehood  takes  this  carp  of  truth ; 

And  thus  do  we  of  wisdom  and  of  reach, 

With  windlasses,  and  with  assays  of  bias, 

By  indirections  find  directions  out." 

44 On  all  this  subject  in  general,  see  "Major  Lewis's  Narrative,"  in 
•Parton's  "Jackson,"  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  310-330,  and  Bassett's  "Jackson,"  Vol. 
II,  pp.  506,  et  seq.  The  latter  author's  use  of  the  Jackson  and  Van 
Buren  Papers  has  rendered  his  narrative  very  useful,  and  I  owe  much 
of  my  account  to  him.  See,  also,  Calhoun's  "  Pamphlet "  in  his  "  Works," 
Vol.  VI,  "Appendix,"  pp.  340-445,  or  Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XL,  pp. 
11-24;  his  later  statement  and  Hamilton's  in  ibid.,  pp.  41-45;  Van  Buren*s 
denial  in  ibid.,  p.  45;  and  Forsyth's  statement  in  ibid.,  p.  88. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  405 

X  By  that  time,  Calhoun  and  Jackson  were  already  drifting 
far  apart.  Their  relations  had  indeed  at  no  time  been  close, 
and  the  former  said,  in  1837:  "  There  never  was  any  inti- 
macy, at  any  time,  between  him  and  myself.  Our  relations 
were  simply  friendly,  without  being  in  any  degree  confiden- 
tial." Now  numerous  jealousies  and  distrusts  had  arisen. 
These  had  probably  begun  with  the  formation  of  the  cabinet, 
while  the  very  recent  Jefferson  Birthday  incident  had  left  a 
sting,  and  the  refusal  to  call  on  Mrs.  Eaton  was  rankling  deep. 
Everything  was  ripe  for  an  explosion.  The  very  day  (May 
13)  after  receiving  Crawford's  letter  to  Forsyth,  Jackson  en- 
closed a  copy  to  Calhoun  with  the  name  of  Hamilton,  Van 
Buren's  close  friend  and  supporter,  suppressed,  remarking  in 
his  accompanying  letter  upon  the  great  surprise  he  felt  at 
the  statements  and  facts  presented  by  Crawford,  "  so  different 
from  what  I  had  heretofore  understood  to  be  correct,'*  and 
desiring  "to  learn  of  you  whether  it  be  possible  that  the 
information  given  is  correct ;  whether  it  can  be,  under  all  the 
circumstance  of  which  you  and  I  are  both  informed,  that  any 
attempt  seriously  to  affect  me  was  moved  and  sustained  by 
you  in  the  cabinet  council." 

Here  was  a  portentous  incident  indeed  for  Calhoun,  and 
perhaps  he  at  once  foresaw  its  probable  effect  on  his  great 
ambition.  He  answered  shortly  the  same  day,  promising  a 
full  reply  later.  This  was  sent  on  May  29th  and  freely  admit- 
ted that  in  the  cabinet  he  had  at  first  maintained  that  Jackson's 
conduct  should  be  investigated,  but  added  that  cabinet  councils 
were  not  for  the  object  of  bringing  together  "  opinions  al- 
ready formed,  but  to  form  opinions  on  the  course  which  the 
Government  ought  to  pursue,  after  full  and  mature  delibera- 
tion," and  that  it  is  accordingly  the  duty  of  members  to  present 
doubts  and  objections.  He  then  went  on  to  say  that  his  argu- 
ments were  met  by  others  "  growing  out  of  a  more  enlarged 
view  of  the  subject,  as  connected  with  the  conduct  of  Spain 
and  her  officers.  .  .  .  After  deliberately  weighing  every  ques- 
tion, when  the  members  of  the  cabinet  came  to  form  their 
final  opinion,  on  a  view  of  the  whole  ground,  it  was  unani- 
*8  Speech  in  Senate  on  February  23,  1837.  "  Works,"  Vol.  Ill,  p.  51. 


\ 


4o6  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

mously  determined,  as  I  understood,  in  favor  of  the  course 
adopted." 

This  was  the  gist  of  the  whole  matter,  but  of  course  the 
controversy  ran  on  long  over  many  other  subjects  as  well 
as  with  other  people.  It  is  impossible,  nor  is  it  desirable,  to 
go  into  all  these  details.  Calhoun  unearthed  the  story  of  the 
underground  burrowings  against  his  character  with  untiring 
energy  and  with  much  success,  but  was  never  able  to  trace  the 
intrigue  up  to  Van  Buren.  Monroe,  the  members  of  his 
cabinet  at  the  time,  and  many  others  were  appealed  to  for 
their  evidence  as  to  the  matters  involved,  and  the  numerous 
points  of  the  controversy  put  in  the  clear  light  that  Calhoun 
was  so  markedly  able  to  throw  on  everything.  He  even  ap- 
pealed, after  Crawford  had  done  the  same,  to  John  Quincy 
Adams,  with  whom, —  owing  to  political  differences, —  he  had 
long  had  no  relations  and  there  was  a  sort  of  rapprochement 
between  the  two  men,  though  Adams  once  for  a  short  time 
suspected  that  Calhoun  was  suppressing  some  of  the  important 
papers.46 

The  breach  between  the  President  and  Vice-President  was 
not  known  to  the  public  at  the  time,  but  rumors  of  it  were 
circulating  by  the  next  January  (1831),  and  Calhoun's  absence 
from  the  Executive  Mansion  on  New  Year's  Day  aided  to 
confirm  these.  In  February,47  he  published  a  pamphlet  on  the 
subject  containing  the  correspondence  and  his  evidence.  That 
it  was  a  very  strong  defense  of  himself  and  showed  a  long- 

46 John  Quincy  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  311,  323,  324,  325, 
331,  and  see  332,  336,  340.  These  relations  did  not  long  continue,  and  1 
do  not  think  the  men  were  ever  close  together  again.  Adams  said  in 
1843  with  evident  bitterness  that  he  was  entitled  by  precedent  to  a  second 
term  as  president,  and  that  it  "  was  lost  to  him  by  the  strenuous,  bitter 
and  persevering  opposition  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  who  of  course  carried  the 
entire  South  with  him  and  such  others  as  he  could  influence.  His  own  eye 
was  doubtless  fixed  upon  the  Presidency."  Geo.  P.  Fisher's  "  Life  of 
Benjamin  Silliman,"  Vol.  I,  p.  367. 

47  Adams  says  the  pamphlet  was  published  late  in  the  night  of  February 
16  (ibid.,  p.  319),  and  later  publications  in  the  matter  were  made  by 
Calhoun  in  the  "U.  S.  Telegraph"  of  February  22  and  25,  1831,  ibid,, 
pp.  324,  325,  327 :  these  latter  are  to  be  found  in  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol. 
XL,  pp.  42-45 ;  while  Hamilton's  Statement  in  the  "  Evening  Post "  is 
to  be  found  in  ibid.,  pp.  41,  42,  and  Forsyth's  publication  in  the  Georgia 
"  Constitutionalist "  in  ibid.,  p.  88.  Calhoun's  pamphlet  is  also  reproduced 
in  ibid.,  pp.  11-24. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  407 

continued  intrigue  to  bring  about  a  breach  between  him  and 
Jackson  will  hardly  be  doubted  by  any  one.  Long,  it  cer- 
tainly was,  and  large  parts  treated  of  the  hidden  intrigue  with 
which  Jackson  had  had  nothing  to  do,  but  this  latter  was 
vital  to  Calhoun,  and  his  pamphlet  was  of  course  intended 
for  the  public  far  more  than  for  Jackson.  Doubtless,  his 
answer  of  May  29th  had  equally  been  written  with  the  ex- 
pectation that  it  would  some  day  be  published. 

Calhoun  thought48  that  his  pamphlet  had  a  great  influence 
on  the  public,  and  it  is  very  remarkable  that  overtures  looking 
to  a  reconciliation  were  made  to  him  early  in  1831,  before  the 
appearance  of  his  pamphlet  but  at  a  time  when  much  of  the 
correspondence  had  been  seen  by  many  people.49  He  wrote  his 
brother-in-law  on  January  13,  1831,  that  "  every  opening  was 
made  for  me  to  renew  my  intercourse  with  the  President,  which 
I  have  declined,  and  will  continue  so  to  do,  till  he  retracts  what 
he  has  done.  His  friends  are  much  alarmed." 

It  would,  of  course,  not  do  to  conclude  from  this  evidence 
from  one  side  alone  that  Jackson,  or  even  his  friends,  for 
once  sought  to  make  peace  in  the  heat  of  battle;  but  the 
statement  is  borne  out  by  evidence  of  a  conclusive  character. 
Van  Buren  wrote  50  to  precisely  the  same  effect  in  his  auto- 
biography, adding  that  the  efforts  nearly  succeeded  and  that, 
if  they  had  done  so,  Calhoun  would  have  reached  the  goal  of 
his  ambition;  and  J.  A.  Hamilton  also  knew  of  the  matter 
and  wrote  Jackson  on  February  3,  1831,  that  Lewis  had  told 
him  "  you  had  from  the  solicitations  of  the  friends  of  both 
parties  promised  to  bury  the  affair  in  oblivion,  provided  the 
other  party  will  act  in  good  faith."  51  I  know  of  no  like  in- 
stance in  Jackson's  career.  He  made  up  quarrels  with  several 
people,  years  after  their  occurrence,  when  his  blood  had  cooled 

48  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  290,  292.  There  is  no  little  evidence  to  this 
same  effect;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  Buchanan  wrote  from  Washington 
("Works,"  by  Moore,  Vol.  II,  pp.  166,  167)  on  February  18,  that  the 
pamphlet  "  has  not  produced  the  sensation  here  which  was  expected.  I 
think  it  will  not  injure  Jackson  in  the  estimation  of  his  friends  in 
Pennsylvania." 

""Correspondence,"  pp.  279,  280. 

00  Bassett's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  516,  517. 

81  J.  A.  Hamilton's  "Reminiscences,"  pp.   195,  196. 


4o8  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

off,  but  there  must  have  been  serious  alarm  in  his  camp  to 
lead  to  the  proposals  made  to  Calhoun  in  this  case,  when  the 
g&udiwm  certaminis  was  still  on. 

Probably,  too,  it  was  a  lingering  hope  of  reconciliation 
that  had  led  Calhoun  to  submit  his  pamphlet  before  publica- 
tion to  a  friend  of  Jackson,  in  order  that  anything  offensive 
to  the  latter  might  be  omitted.  Grundy  seems  to  have  acted 
in  this  matter  for  Calhoun,  and  called  on  Eaton  as  a  friend 
of  Jackson  to  go  over  the  manuscript  with  him.  They  did 
this  together,  and  alterations  were  suggested  by  Eaton,  which 
Calhoun  apparently  agreed  to.  The  main  object  was  to  get  the 
pamphlet  in  such  shape  that  Jackson  would  not  feel  obliged 
to  answer  publicly,  and  Eaton  was  to  have  explained  all  this 
to  the  President,  but  did  not,  because  he  concluded  it  would 
be  "  improper."  Perhaps  he  feared  an  explosion  of  tem- 
per.52 

Despite  his  overtures  for  a  reconciliation,  Jackson  was  evi- 
dently still  in  high  wrath,  and,  in  the  end  of  1830,  before 
the  quarrel  became  publicly  known,  seems  to  have  been  writing 
of  Calhoun  as  "  an  ambitious  demagogue  .  .  .  [who]  would 
sacrifice  friends  and  country,  and  move  heaven  and  earth  to 
gratify  his  unholy  ambition,"  53  and  again  he  wrote  of  him 
to  a  friend,54  at  about  the  same  time : 

You  know  the  confidence  I  once  had  in  that  gentleman.  ...  I 
have  a  right  to  believe  that  most  of  the  troubles,  vexations  and 
difficulties  I  have  had  to  encounter,  since  my  arrival  in  this  city, 
have  been  caused  by  his  friends.  But  for  the  present  let  this 
suffice.  I  find  that  Mr.  Calhoun  objects  to  the  apportionment  of 
the  surplus  revenues  among  the  several  States,  after  the  public 
debt  is  paid.  He  is,  also,  silent  on  the  bank  question,  and  is  be- 
lieved to  have  encouraged  the  introduction  and  adoption  of  the 
resolutions  in  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  relative  to  the 
tariff.  I  wish  you  to  have  a  few  numbers  written  on  the  ap- 
portionment of  the  surplus  revenue,  after  the  debt  is  paid.  It 

52  Eaton's  statement  in  the  "Globe"  of  March  26,  1831,  reproduced  in 
Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XL,  p.  88. 

53  Letter  in  New   York   Public  Library,  quoted  in  Jervey's  "  Hayne," 
p.  280. 

54  Letter  of  December  31,  1830,  to  Judge  Overton,  in  Parton's  "  Jackson," 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  204,  295- 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  409 

is  the  only  thing  that  can  allay  the  jealousies  arising  between  the 
different  sections  of  the  country. 

This  was  mild  enough,  but  with  the  public  quarrel  all  bars 
were  down,  and  in  the  latter  half  of  1831  Jackson  was  writ- 
ing to  Van  Buren : 

You  may  rest  assured  Duff  Green,  Calhoun  &  Co.  are  politi- 
cally dead. 

And  again: 

The  fruitful  mind  of  the  great  intriguer  Calhoun  with  his  aid 
Duff  is  upon  the  rack  to  find  some  plan  to  destroy  me. 

And  still  another  time : 

What  must  a  moral  world  or  community  think  of  a  man  so 
perversely  prone  to  secret  lying  as  John  C.  Calhoun  is  proven  to 
be? 

William  R.  King,  too,  described  Calhoun  to  Van  Buren  in 
1833  as  "  (politically),  a  dead  cock  in  the  pit."  55 

Mention  should  be  made  here  of  the  fact  that,  during  the 
heat  of  this  contest,  about  a  month  before  the  publication  of 
Calhoun's  pamphlet,  there  seems  to  have  been  a  serious  mis- 
understanding between  Calhoun  and  Van  Buren,  and  J.  Q. 
Adams  wrote  on  January  13,  1831,  "there  has  been  a  very 
prevalent  rumor  that  a  challenge  passed  between  them."  56  The 
matter  was  amicably  settled  about  that  time,  but  I  have  not 
learned  what  was  the  origin  of  the  dispute. 

t  seems  to  me  perfectly  clear  that  Calhoun  proved  con- 
ely  the  entire  propriety  of  his  course  in  the  cabinet  in 
1819,  nor  had  Jackson  any  right  to  feel  that  there  was  shown 
at  that  time  the  least  hostility  to  him.  To  suggest  at  first 
blush  that  the  general's  conduct  should  be  made  a  matter  of 
inquiry  was  not  only  justifiable  but  qdite  to  be  expected  under 
the  extraordinary  circumstances,  j/tfut  there  is  another  view 
of  the  matter  to  be  considered,  relating  to  subsequent  events, 
and  in  this  aspect  Jackson's  amazement  and  wrath  at  Craw- 

55  Letters  of  July  n,   September  5,  and   November   14,   1831,   and  of 
January  9,  1833,  in  the  Van  Buren  Papers  in  Library  of  Congress. 
M  «  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  274. 


4io  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

ford's  information  are  not  to  be  wondered  at.  He  had  al- 
ways believed  that  Calhoun  was  his  special  defender  in  the 
Seminole  discussion,  and  in  1819, —  or  i82i,57 — offered  his 
well-known  toast  to  "  John  C.  Calhoun, —  an  honest  man,  '  the 
noblest  work  of  God,'  "  and  wrote  in  1825  that  he  was  satisfied 
"  Calhoun  was  the  only  friend  I  had  in  the  cabinet."  To  be 
informed  so  circumstantially  to  the  direct  contrary  would  have 
surprised  any  one,  let  alone  a  person  of  Jackson's  stamp. 

The  main  question  then  is  whether  Calhoun  was  to  blame 
for  the  existence  of  Jackson's  belief  that  he  had  been  the  latter's 
special  defender.  There  was  certainly  no  duty  to  go  to  the 
general  and  tell  him  the  details  of  one's  course  in  the  matter, 
but  the  silence  followed  had  its  unpleasant  features,  and  here 
is  the  weak  spot  in  Calhoun' s  conduct.  It  is  probable  that 
opinions  in  regard  to  the  matter  had  been  expressed  in  his 
presence  by  Jackson  which  were  wide  of  the  actual  state  of  the 
case  and  showed  an  entire  conviction  that  the  Secretary  of  War 
had  been  his  chief  defender,  and  to  let  these  impressions  stand 
without  correction  was  at  least  a  painful  necessity  of  the  oc- 
casion. 

It  is  not  unlikely,  moreover,  that  Calhoun  did  more  than 
once,  what  we  know  he  did  in  February,  1828,  to  J.  A.  Hamil- 
ton, shield  himself  under  the  verbal  form  of  a  question  and 
give  an  answ;er,  which,  while  strictly  true,  did  yet  produce  an 
erroneous  impression  on  his  questioner.  But  what  else  could 
he  do  ?  What  course  can  a  man  follow,  when  asked  a  question 
which  there  is  no  right  to  ask?  On  the  whole,  I  should  say 
that  he  was  not  to  blame  and  that  his  conduct  was  necessary 
in  the  great  affairs  he  was  concerned  in,  but  it  was  a  painful 
situation  to  be  placed  in,  and  no  one  could  expect  the  other 

57  As  both  Lewis  (see  his  statement  in  Parton's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  Ill, 
pp.  311-14)  and  Jackson  himself  ("Exposition"  in  "  Benton's  View" 
Vol.  I,  p.  177),  say  this  toast  was  given  at  Winchester,  Va.,  while  Jack- 
son was  on  the  way  to  Washington  (January,  1819)  to  defend  himself 
against  the  Congressional  attack  in  the  Seminole  matter,  I  hardly  feel 
at  liberty  to  contradict  them.  I  have,  however,  been  entirely  unable  to 
find  any  mention  of  it  in  the  papers  of  that  time,  and  do  find  that  it  was 
given  by  him  at  a  dinner  at  Nashville,  upon  his  return  home  from  Pensa- 
cola,  in  1821.  "The  National  Intelligencer"  of  December  8,  1821.  Lewis 
probably  only  repeated  what  Jackson  had  told  him,  and  either  Jackson's 
memory  was  at  fault,  or  he  gave  the  same  toast  twice. 


THE  WIDENING  BREACH  411 

side  to  look  upon  his  actions  otherwise  than  as  deception^' 
Calhoun  thought  all  through  the  controversy,  and    robabl 


to  the  end  of  his  life,  that  Van  Buren  was  at  the  bottom  of 
the  attack  upon  him  and  so  stated  in  more  than  one  instance.58 
Van  Buren  denied  having  had  anything  to  do  with  it,  and  said 
that  Hamilton's  applications  to  Forsyth  in  1828  and  1830  were 
made  without  his  advice  or  procurement,  adding  that  "  he  has, 
at  no  period,  taken  any  part  "  in  the  matter.59  But  this  does 
not  cover  the  question  of  his  having  learned  of  Crawford's 
charges,  when  visiting  the  latter  with  Cambreleng  in  April, 
1827,  nor  deny  that  it  was  either  through  him  or  his  friends 
that  Hamilton  acquired  knowledge  of  the  story  at  an  early 
date.  Probably,  he  could  not  have  denied  this,  but,  when  once 
the  luscious  secret  was  thus  started  on  its  course,  he  was 
far  too  adroit  to  allow  himself  to  be  publicly  caught  in  such 
an  effort  to  ruin  a  rival.  Nor  was  there  the  least  necessity. 
His  friends  were  quite  enough.  Perhaps  Van  Buren's  rela- 
tion to  the  matter  has  been  fairly  summed  up  by  saying  that 
he  was  "  studiously  ignorant  "  60  of  it. 

At  a  later  date,  Jackson  prepared  an  answer  to  Calhoun, 
which  he  at  one  time  probably  intended  to  print  and  issue. 
He  sent  it  in  April,  1832,  to  J.  A.  Hamilton  for  examination, 
but  Hamilton  "  urgently  advised  him  not  to  publish."  61  It 
was  doubtless  the  same  paper  with  which  Calhoun  thought  in 
June  of  the  same  year  that  "  Genl.  Jackson  is  about  to  come 
before  the  publick,"  62  but  it  did  not  then  nor  for  many  years  see 
the  light  of  day.  Benton  says  it  was  withheld,  because  Jack- 
son decided  it  was  unbecoming  63  for  the  President  to  engage 
in  newspaper  controversy,  and  he  reproduces  in  his  "  View  "  64 

58  "  Correspondence/'  pp.  289,  290.    John  Quincy  Adams's  "Memoirs," 
Vol.  VIII,  p.  305. 
58  Van  Buren's  "Statement"  of  February  25,  1831,  in  the  "  U.  S.  Tele- 

fraph  "  of  the  26th,  and  reprinted  in  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XL,  p.  45. 
ee,  also,  Bassett's  "Jackson,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  513-15. 
60  Hunt's  "Calhoun,"  p.  112. 
01  J.  A.  Hamilton's  "  Reminiscences,"  pp.  244,  245. 

62  "  Correspondence,"  p.  321. 

63  These  words  are  written  in  June,  1912,  when  two  would-be  candidates 
of  high  Eastern  culture  have  progressed  far  from  such  crude  notions  of 
a  rough  backwoodsman. 

64  Vol.  I,  pp.  167-180.    Jackson's  circumstantial  story  of  the  answer  he  re- 
ceived to  the  Rhea  letter  is  of  course  referred  to,  and  I,  at  least,  cannot 


4i2  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

portions  —  probably  the  greater  part  —  of  the  answer,  in  which 
the  curious  reader  may  find  absolutely  insoluble  differences  be- 
tween Jackson  and  his  supporters  on  one  side,  and  Monroe, 
Calhoun,  and  others  on  the  opposite  side. 

solve  that  mystery  without  questioning  the  veracity  of  one  side  or  the  other. 
Like  instances  have  occurred  in  very  recent  days. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  DRAMA   OF   NULLIFICATION 

Defiance  Discussed  in  South  Carolina  —  Calhoun's  Hesita- 
tions and  Presidential  Hopes  —  McDuffie's  Speech  of  May  19, 
1831  — Calhoun  Declares  Himself —  The  Tariff  Act  of  1832 
—  Letter  to  Governor  Hamilton  —  The  Nullification  Conven- 
tion—  The  Unionists  —  Elected  to  Senate  —  Death  of  Presi- 
dential Hopes. 

MEANWHILE,  lowering  clouds  were  fast  rolling  up,  far  away 
to  the  South,  and  all  signs  indicated  the  breaking  of  a  storm  of 
tropical  fury.  Carolina,  as  her  sons  have  ever  loved  to  call 
her,  was  making  ready,  small  and  alone  as  she  was,  to  defy 
the  Federal  power  and  the  man  of  iron  nerve  who  then  oc- 
cupied the  Presidential  office.  It  was  a  strange  drama,  and  it 
turned  out  later  to  be  but  the  prologue  to  a  far  greater  and  a 
terrible  tragedy^" 

Probably  all  the  leading  men  of  South  Carolina  engaged 
in  public  affairs  and  the  majority  of  those  taking  any  interest 
in  politics  knew  pretty  well  what  Nullification  was  and  had 
some  idea  of  how  it  was  to  be  applied,  after  the  publication 
of  the  "Exposition"  and  "Protest,"  at  the  end  of  1828; 
but,  of  course,  the  average  citizen  had  not  yet  given  much  atten- 
tion to  the  doctrine.  Endless  discussion  was  still  necessary  to 
bring  about  general  acceptance  and  carry  the  State  upon  the 
issue.  It  was  evidently  agitated  in  every  way  for  a  long  pe- 
riod, and  earnest  arguments,  of  which  Calhoun's  various  papers 
are  beyond  doubt  the  most  able,1  addressed  to  the  reason  as 
well  as  to  the  feelings  of  the  voters. 

1  Chancellor  Harper,  too,  at  Columbia,  on  September  20,  1830,  de- 
livered so  closely  reasoned  an  address  upon  the  subject  that  the  character 
of  his  audience  is  hard  to  realize.  It  was  printed  in  1832,  and  a  copy 
exists  in  the  Library  of  the  University  of  South  Carolina,  and  also  in 
the  Library  Co.  of  Philadelphia. 


414  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

TJ 

Hamilton  had  an  active  hand  in  this  agitation  in  general 
and  was  (as  has  been  shown)  the  first  to  announce  the  doc- 
trine from  the  stump.  He  wrote  Calhoun2  on  May  10,  1829: 

I  have  written  to  Hayne  and  Pinckney  to  keep  up  the  fire  on 
the  tariff,  and  shall  not  be  idle  for  the  Southern  Review  3  this 
summer  at  North  Hampton. 

On  the  other  side  was,  e.  g.,  Judge  Richardson's  Address  to 
the  People,4  in  which  he  combatted  most  of  the  positions  of 
the  Nullifiers  and  warned  the  people  that,  if  they  voted  to 
call  a  Convention,  it  must  nullify  and  could  not  discuss,  for  that 
would  be  rebellion  on  its  part.  The  body  would  only  meet  to 
declare  the  decision  already  made  by  the  State.  On  the  gen- 
eral doctrine,  he  objected  that  nothing  was  clear,  and  no  one 
of  their  great  statesmen  had  yet  staked  his  reputation  on  the 
position  that  a  State  could  nullify  and  yet  remain  in  the  Un- 
ion. Is  Nullification  Secession?  he  asked.  And  again; 

The  advocates  of  this  refined  doctrine  seem  to  forget  that  if 
the  nullification  be  itself  nullified  by  any  foreign  power  or 
powers  whatever  [probably  meaning  by  a  Convention  of  the 
States],  that  the  sovereign  right  of  the  State  is  subject  to  con- 
trol from  abroad,  which  denies  every  attribute  and  characteristic 
attached  to  the  meaning  of  sovereign  power.  .  .  .  My  under- 
standing cannot  get  over  this  stumbling  block  in  the  way.  .  .-.;.  £ 

I 

In  the  winter  of  1829-30,  the  subject  was  freely  discussed 
in  the  South  Carolina  newspapers.  Some  were  outspoken  in 

2 "  Calhoun  Correspondence,"  p.  808.  B.  F.  Perry  ("  Reminiscences," 
p.  143 )  writes  that  Hamilton  "was  the  gallant  leader  of  the  nullification 
party  in  South  Carolina.  He  originated  the  nullification  clubs,  which 
were  established  in  every  district  of  the  State,  and  which  carried  the 
election  that  fall  [1831],  in  two-thirds  of  the  election  districts.  Mr.  Cal- 
houn was  the  author  of  nullification  in  South  Carolina,  but  Governor  Ham- 
ilton made  it  a  success  throughout  the  State.  But  for  him  it  would  have 
fallen  still-born,  or  been  crushed  in  its  swaddling  clothes." 

*  Possibly  two  anonymous  reviews  of  certain  publications,  which  are 
in  the  "  Southern  Review  "  for  August,  1830,  pp.  206  et  seq.,  and  for  No- 
vember, 1830,  pp.  421  et  seq.,  are  by  Hamilton. 

4 "To  the  People,  an  Address  in  five  numbers,  originally  published  in 
the  '  Camden  Journal '  by  '  Jefferson,'  republished  by  permission  of  the 
author,  Hon.  J.  S.  Richardson,  together  with  his  speech  delivered  at  the 
Statesborough  Dinner,  in  Opposition  to  Disunion,  Convention  and  Nulli- 
fication." Charleston  1830.  Pamphlet  in  Library  of  College  of  Charles- 
ton. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  415 

its  favor,  while  others  thought  the  whole  doctrine  absurd  and 
were  disgusted  to  hear  it  spoken  of.y  The  idea,  they  would 

say,  of  nullifying  and  yet  remaining  a  part  of  the  Union;/ 

and  so  various  writers  under  assumed  names  of  ancient  Rome 
threshed  again  over  the  same  grain  and  chaff  which  had  al- 
ready several  times  before  in  our  history  been  winnowed  in 
other  parts  of  the  country.  All  this  went  to  the  education  of 
the  voting  masses,  but  besides  these  there  were  some  particular 
leaders  whom  both  sides  were  anxious  to  gain  as  recruits. 

William  Drayton  was  one  of  these.  Belonging  to  a  family 
of  power  and  wealth  in  a  community  where  family  counted 
for  a  great  deal,  and  having  shown  marked  ability  in  Congress, 
no  wonder  the  nullifiers  strove  to  bring  him  over  entirely  to 
their  side.  He  was  already  one  of  their  stoutest  champions 
upon  the  main  issue  of  the  tariff,  but  refused  entirely  the 
remedy  of  Nullification.  The  first  effort  is  said  by  one  writer 
to  have  been  to  dragoon  and  drive  him,  and  at  some  dinner  Mc- 
Duffte,  famous  among  orators  for  the  vehemence  of  his  ac- 
tion, is  said  to  have  appealed  pointedly  to  him  "  as  one  of 
those  who  had  drawn  the  state  into  her  then  alternative  of 
resistance  ...  or  tame  submission.  He  quoted  the  speeches 
of  Colonel  Drayton  delivered  in  Congress,  full  of  invective 
and  menace,  committing  the  State  to  use  force,  if  force  were 
necessary."  6 

Later,  gentle  leading  was  tried  at  a  dinner  given  at  Charles- 
ton on  July  4,  1830,  to  Hayne  and  Drayton.  There  was  a 
vast  crowd  present,  and  Drayton  was  tremendously  cheered 
as  he  rose  to  respond  to  the  toast  to  him, — "  with  devoted 
firmness  he  has  pursued  the  dictates  of  his  conscience  in 
opposition  to  the  request  of  a  respected  portion  of  his  con- 
stituents—  we  honor  him  for  his  independence."  He  said, 
however,  once  more  that  he  could  not  accept  Nullification, 
and  the  toast  he  gave  expressed  the  wish  that  the  flag  may 
"  ever  wave,  with  undiminished  lustre,  over  free,  sovereign, 

»McMaster's  "United  States,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  &,  S3- 

«"  Memoirs  of  James  Louis  Petigru,"  by  William  J.  Grayson,  pp.  ill, 
112.  I  have  found  no  other  evidence  of  this  meeting  and  it  may  well  be 
apocryphal.  Perhaps  Grayson  confounded  it  with  the  meeting  of  July 
4,  1830;  but  he  narrates  it  very  clearly. 


416  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

and  '  United  States/  "  Nor  could  he  be  shaken  by  the  gentle 
suasion  and  splendid  eloquence  of  Hayne  nor  by  James  Hamil- 
ton, Jr.'s,  insinuating  prediction  that,  however  much  he  might 
differ  from  them  at  that  time  on  details,  yet  as  the  text  of  his 
opinions  affirmed  the  right  of  resistance,  when  South  Carolina 
did  act,  he  would  be  found  in  the  van.7 

Drayton  remained  an  Unionist  to  the  end,  even  voted  in 
1833  for  the  Force  Bill,  and  was  finally  one  of  those  to  leave 
the  State.  Others,  and  there  were  far  more  of  them,  took 
the  opposite  course  and  from  opponents  became  outspoken 
and  earnest  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  Nullification,  Con- 
spicuous among  these  was  Chancellor  Harper,  who  was  a 
Nationalist  in  1826  but  became  a  leading  nullifier  and  one  of 
the  chief  supporters  of  the  doctrine  with  his  pen,  though  ap- 
parently always  disliking  Calhoun.8  Wm.  C.  Preston,  too, 
had  formerly  held  other  views,  but  was  early  won  over  by 
Calhoun.9  And  David  R.  Williams,  who  had  strongly  op- 
posed the  earlier  New  England  State  Rights  movements,  be- 
came in  time  a  staunch  nullifier.10  Much  the  same  might  be 
said  of  Hamilton,  McDuffie,  Hayne  and  others;  nor  was 
the  record  of  Calhoun  himself  very  different. 

All  these  events  were  of  course  well  known  and  closely 
observed  by  Calhoun,  and  he  was  certainly  by  this  time  a  leader 
in  the  whole  movement,  though  it  will  soon  appear  that  there 
were  even  yet  times  when  he  was  not  fast  enough  for  the  hot 
bloods  and  hesitated  to  take  the  awful  plunge  in  full  view  of 
the  whole  country.  Evidently,  some  others,  too,  hesitated 
at  times  on  the  brink.  Thomas  Ritchie,  of  the  Richmond  En- 
quirer thought  in  June,  1830,  that  the  Southern  troubles  were 
far  less  menacing,  and  wrote  n  his  brother  on  the  8th  of  the 
month : 

I  had  this  day  long  conversations  with  Stevenson  and  with 

7  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXXVIII,  pp.  375-92. 

8  Hunt's  "Calhoun,"  p.  61.    Letter  of  Thomas  Cooper  in  "American 
Historical    Review,"    (1900-01),    p.    728. 

9  Ibid. 

10  Pendleton's  "  Alexander  H.  Stephens,"  p.  32.     Hunt's  "  Calhoun,"  p. 
237. 

The  John  Branch  Historical  Papers,"  of  Randolph  Macon  College, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  207-209. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  417 

McDuffie.  I  infer  from  the  remarks  and  tone  of  the  latter  that 
the  storm  in  South  Carolina  is  blowing  over,  that  the  proceed- 
ings of  Congress  12  for  the  last  few  days  previous  to  adjournment 
will  have  the  effect  of  tranquillizing  her  excited  politicians.  .  .  . 
I  told  him  very  plainly  that  in  my  opinion  Virginia  would  not  co- 
operate in  such  a  measure.  He  said  the  most  the  politicians  of 
S.  C.  had  thought  of  doing  was  to  declare  the  Tariff  null  and 
void  by  a  Convention,  and  then  leaving  it  to  her  Juries  to  refuse 
giving  Judgments  on  the  Revenue  Bonds.  He  seemed  to  think 
that  even  this  course  would  now  be  abandoned.  ...  I  confess 
upon  the  whole  his  tone  is  much  softened  down,  and  that  I  have 
almost  lost  all  fear  of  a  storm  from  the  South. 

To  just  what  extent  Ritchie's  understanding  of  McDuffie  was 
correct  must  remain  uncertain.  He  may  have  been  guided 
to  some  extent  by  his  feelings,  but  Hayne  also  wrote 
Van  Buren  on  October  28,  1830,  that  the  Nullification  plans 
were  much  exaggerated ; 13  and  there  is,  moreover,  evidence 
that  Calhoun,  too,  was  at  about  that  time  hesitating  to  cross 
the  fateful  Rubicon.  Thus,  on  September  n,  1830,  he  wrote 
a  long  letter  14  from  Fort  Hill  to  his  friend  Maxcy,  who  had 
evidently  urged  him  to  certain  steps  in  some  important  matter 
as  to  himself  —  presumably  in  regard  to  the  presidency.  This 
private  letter  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  do  otherwise  than 
represent  its  writer's  genuine  opinions  and  shows  him  full 
of  earnest  devotion  to  the  Union  but  feeling  compelled  by  the 
sacred  interests  of  home  to  the  course  he  and  South  Carolina 
were  advocating,  and  absolutely  convinced  that  they  were 
guarding  real  liberty.  It  shows  him,  too,  convinced  by  that 
time, —  and  it  is,  so  far  as  I  have  found,  his  earliest  expression 
of  this  belief, —  that  slavery  was  the  fundamental  cause  of 
the  differences  between  the  sections,  and  the  tariff  but  the 
occasion.  The  letter  reads  in  part : 

Your  opinion  has  been  made  up  too  much,  as  it  relates  to  me 
individually,  and  my  future  prospects.  The  partiality  of  a  long 
and  ardent  friendship  may  be  well  excused  in  taking  so  re- 

12  Referring  doubtless  to  the  veto  of  the  Maysville  Road  bill. 

13  Letter  in  Van  Buren  Papers,  cited  in  Bassett's  "  Jackson,"  Vol.  II, 
P-  5'58. 

14  The  Maxcy-Markoe  Collection  in  Library  of  Congress. 


418  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

stricted  a  view;  but,  I  fear,  the  world  and  my  own  judgment, 
would  not  be  so  lenient  toward -me,  were  I  to  act  on  it.  In  this, 
as  well  as  in  all  the  other  trying  situations,  in  which  I  have  been 
placed,  I  must  merge  my  interest,  in  the  higher  sense  of  duty; 
and  to  do  that,  which  with  the  best  lights  I  have,  may  seem 
right,  regardless  of  consequences.  Not  that  I  am  indifferent  to 
what  concerns  myself,  or  my  future  advancement.  It  would  be 
mere  affectation  to  pretend  to  such  indifference,  but,  I  trust,  how- 
ever strong  may  be  my  ambition,  my  sense  of  duty  is  still 
stronger.  .  .  . 

From  a  sense  of  propriety  connected  with  my  relations  to  the 
General  Government,  I  have  not  intermingled  with  the  great  con- 
test between  it  and  the  State,  except  so  far  as  might  seem  advisable 
to  direct  the  eye  of  the  state  to  the  constitution,  instead  of  looking 
beyond  it,  for  the  redress  of  its  wrongs.  My  friends,  out  of  the 
State,  seem  to  think,  at  least  many  of  them,  that  another  duty 
is  imposed  on  me,  to  step  forward  in  order  to  arrest  the  current 
of  events.  They  appear  to  take  it  for  granted,  that  it  is  in  my 
power.  In  this  they  make  a  great  mistake.  In  my  opinion  there 
is  but  one  man  in  this  Union,  who  can  quiet  the  State,  I  mean 
the  President  of  the  United  States.  If  he  were  to  come  out  de- 
cidedly in  his  message  to  Congress  recognizing  the  justice  of  the 
complaints  of  the  South,  and  throwing  his  weight  without  equivo- 
cation on  the  side  of  equalizing  the  burdens  and  benefits  of  the 
Union,  the  State  would  undoubtedly  pause,  in  the  hope  of  re- 
dress by  the  General  Government,  but  for  me,  who  have  so  little 
control  over  its  movements,  to  attempt  to  stay  the  present  cur- 
rent, were  I  so  inclined,  would,  under  my  impression,  be  almost 
an  act  of  madness.  In  fact,  I  thought  the  Maysville  veto,  would 
dispose  the  State  to  make  another  effort  through  the  General 
Government  for  relief,  and  so  expressed  myself  freely  to  my 
friends  before  I  left  Washington,  but  I  found  on  my  return,  that 
so  far  from  that  being  the  case,  the  question  of  Convention  or  no 
Convention  already  made  all  over  the  State.  Nor  am  I  sur- 
prised, when  I  come  to  reflect,  that  the  veto  had  so  little  effect, 
on  the  publick  mind  here.  The  message  was  drawn  up,  at  least 
in  appearance,  with  too  much  art,  and  looked  too  much  like  court- 
ing all  sides,  to  satisfy  those,  who  were  contending  for  principles, 
which  they  believed  were  essential  to  the  preservation  of  their 
liberty.  .  .  . 

If,  I  really  believed,  that  civil  discord,  revolution,  or  disunion 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  419 

would  follow  from  the  measure  contemplated,  I  would  not  hesi- 
tate, devoted  to  our  system  of  government,  as  I  am,  to  throw  my- 
self in  the  current  with  the  view  to  arrest  it  at  every  hazard,  but 
believing  that  the  State,  while  she  is  struggling  to  preserve  her 
reserved  powers,  is  acting  with  devoted  loyalty  to  the  Union,  no 
earthly  consideration  would  induce  me  to  do  an  act,  or  utter  a 
sentiment,  which  would  cast  an  imputation  on  her  motives. 
Should  the  State  ever  look  beyond  her  present  object,  to  pre- 
vent a  consolidation  of  all  power  in  the  General  Government,  and 
thereby  the  loss  of  our  liberty  and  Union,  I  trust  no  good  citizen 
would  better  understand  his  duty  to  the  Union  or  be  more  prompt 
to  perform  it,  than  myself ;  but  of  this  there  is  not  the  least  fear, 
unless  the  Genl.  Government  should  undertake  to  oppose  force 
to  Constitutional  and  peaceful  remedies. 

I  consider  the  Tariff,  but  as  the  occasion,  rather  than  the  real 
cause  of  the  present  unhappy  state  of  things.  The  truth  can  no 
longer  be  disguised,  that  the  peculiar  domestick  institution  of  the 
Southern  States,  and  the  consequent  direction,  which  that  and 
her  soil  and  climate  have  given  to  her  industry,  has  placed  them 
in  regard  to  taxation  and  appropriations  in  opposite  relations  to 
the  majority  of  the  Union ;  against  the  danger  of  which,  if  there 
be  no  protective  power  in  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States,  they 
must  in  the  end  be  forced  to  rebel,  or  submit  to  have  their  perma- 
nent interests  sacrificed,  their  domestick  institutions  subverted 
by  Colonization  and  other  schemes,  and  themselves  &  children 
reduced  to  wretchedness.  Thus  situated,  the  denial  of  the  right 
of  the  State  to  interfere  constitutionally  in  the  last  resort,  more 
alarms  the  thinking,  than  all  other  causes.  .  .  . 

Again,  on  November  3,  when  the  Legislature  was  soon 
to  meet  and  the  question  of  calling  a  convention  to  be  decided, 
he  wrote  Maxcy: 

I  see  a  great  crisis.  I  pray  God  that  our  beloved  country  may 
pass  it  in  safety.  I  did  hope  that  the  election  of  General  Jack- 
son would  have  carried  us  through  by  his  firmness  and  patriot- 
ism, with  safety.  May  he  yet  do  it;  but  my  hope  is  faint  in- 
deed. 

As  is  well  known,  this  first  effort  to  call  a  Convention  failed 
at  the  session  of  the  State  Legislature  in  the  end  of  1830. 

18  Maxcy-Markoe  Collection,  ibidem. 


420  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Its  success  would  certainly  have  meant  Nullification.  Preston 
had  made  the  motion  to  call  a  Convention  after  the  ensuing 
session  of  Congress,  but  D.  E.  Huger  then  moved  a  vastly 
milder  measure,  and  Preston's  motion,  which  required  a  two- 
thirds  vote,  barely  secured  an  actual  majority  in  the  House 
of  60  Ayes  to  56  Noes.  A  correspondent  of  the  Courier  wrote 
that  "  never  has  there,  in  my  knowledge,  been  such  intense  and 
bitter  excitement  in  the  Legislature,"  while  far-off  Niles  in- 
dulged in  an  altogether  premature  paean  of  triumph  as  to 
the  complete  defeat  the  nullifiers  would  suffer  at  the  next  elec- 
tion.16 

Other  steps,  which  these  latter  doubtless  regarded  with 
more  satisfaction,  had  better  success  in  the  Legislature,  and  it 
is  likely  that  Calhoun,  who  was  usually  very  punctual  in  at- 
tending Congress  but  did  not  this  year  reach  Washington 
until  December  27,17  had  remained  South  in  consequence  of 
these  matters.  Not  only  was  William  Smith  defeated  for 
the  U.  S.  Senatorship,  but  the  Legislature  once  more  passed 
a  series  of  resolutions,18  which  had  evidently  been  drawn  in 
close  accord  with  the  famous  Resolutions  of  1798  and  1799. 
They  asserted  the  general  doctrines  of  State  Rights,  and  added 
that  the  tariff  acts  were  "  deliberate  and  highly  dangerous 
and  oppressive  violations  of  the  constitutional  compact,  and 
that  whenever  any  State,  which  is  suffering  under  this  op- 
pression, shall  lose  all  reasonable  hope  of  redress  from  the 
wisdom  and  justice  of  the  Federal  Government,  it  will  be  its 
right  and  duty  to  interpose,  in  its  sovereign  capacity,  for  the 
purpose  of  arresting  the  progress  of  the  evil  occasioned  by 
the  said  unconstitutional  acts." 

At  the  session  of  Congress  of  1830-31,  another  effort  was 
made  by  the  Southerners,  wliich  must  be  referred  to.  The 
right  to  have  a  decree  of  the  highest  court  of  a  State  revised 

16  Jervey's  "  Hayne,"  284,  285 ;  Charleston  "  Courier "  of  December  3, 
1830;  Niles's  Register,  Vol.  XXXIX,  p.  330. 

"  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXXIX,  p.  333. 

18  South  Carolina  Laws,  &c.,  1830,  p.  59.  See,  also,  Niles's  "  Register," 
Vol.  XXXIX,  pp.  304,  305.  Jackson  thought  Calhoun  had  encouraged  the 
introduction  of  these  resolutions;  letter  of  December  31,  1830,  to  Judge 
Overton  quoted  ante,  Vol.  II,  pp.  408,  409, 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  421 

by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  had  been  inserted  in 
the  Judiciary  Act  of  1789  by  the  fathers  fresh  from  the  Con- 
stitutional Convention,  but  had  always  been  a  subject  of  at- 
tack by  the  ultra  State-Rights  School,  and  the  intention  to 
authorize  it  denied.  The  provision  might  well  come  to  be 
very  inconvenient  to  South  Carolina  in  her  Nullification  strug- 
gle, and  on  December  21  Warren  R.  Davis  introduced  a  bill 
into  the  House  to  repeal  it.  This  was  favorably  reported 
from  committee,  but  was  lost  in  the  House  on  January  29. 

Calhoun  had  not  yet  reached  Washington,  at  the  time  of 
the  introduction  of  the  measure,  and  there  is  nothing  definite 
to  connect  him  with  it,  but  Davis  was  his  close  friend,  and 
Calhoun  wrote  Hammond  on  the  subject  on  January  I5th, 
remarking  that  the  discussion  "  will  doubtless  strengthen  our 
doctrines,  as  the  occurrence  in  Georgia  has  done."  He  seems 
to  have  thought  the  repeal  would  pass  the  House,  and  added : 
"  however  strange  it  may  seem,  there  are  many  zealously  in 
favour  of  the  repeal,  who  are  violently  opposed  to  what  they 
call  Nullification,19  as  if  the  appeal  did  not  comprehend  and 
go  beyond  Nullification." 

In  this  same  letter  of  January  15,  1831,  events  were  given 
another  push  forward. X  Calhoun  wrote  that,  as  an  united  ef- 
fort of  the  Sou>h  seemed  hopeless  of  attainment  during  Jack- 
son's time:  ^we  must  next  look  to  the  action  of  our  own 
State,  as  she  is  the  only  one,  that  can  possibly  put  herself  on  her 
sovereignty."  In  other  words,  the  answers  of  the  sister  States 
had  been  so  unfavorable,  that  it  was  plain  they  would  not  join 
in  the  movement.  South  Carolina  alone  must  nullify. 

Historians  have  differed  in  regard  to  how  far  Calhoun 
was  known  at  the  time  as  the  author  of  the  "  Exposition  "  and 
as  a  leader  in  general  in  directing  the  course  of  his  State. 

19  Calhoun  did  not  like  the  word  Nullification, —  perhaps  because  it 
implied  more  than  he  meant.  His  purpose  was  to  force  the  calling  of 
a  convention  of  the  States.  "  Nullification,"  so  he  is  reported  as  saying, 
"  is  not  my  word.  I  never  use  it.  I  always  say  State  Interposition.  My 
purpose  is  a  suspensive  veto  to  compel  the  installing  of  the  highest 
tribunal  provided  in  the  Constitution,  to  decide  on  the  point  in  dispute. 
I  do  not  wish  to  destroy  the  Union,  I  only  wish  to  make  it  honest." 
Charles  Coterworth  Pinckney's  "  John  C.  Calhoun,  from  a  Southern  Stand- 
point," "  Lippincott's  Magazine/'  Vol.  LXII,  pp.  81-90. 


422  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

"'What  has  been  quoted,  however,  from  his  Autobiography  in 
regard  to  the  authorization  he  gave  Preston  to  name  him  as 
the  waiter,  and  again  what  he  said  to  many  visitors  at  Fort 
Hill  in  the  summer  of  1828  as  to  his  ideas  of  the  proper 
course  to  pursue,  can  hardly  leave  much  doubt  that  the  public 
men  of  South  Carolina  generally  knew  his  beliefs  and  his  ac- 
tions. This  receives  confirmation,  too,  from  what  Poinsett 
told  Adams20  in  August  of  1830  that  Calhoun  was  at  the 
bottom  of  the  whole  agitation  and  was  "  the  instigator  of  the 
most  violent  measures." 

It  does  not  at  all  follow  from  this,  however,  that  the  general 
public  of  South  Carolina  or  leading  men  in  other  parts  of  the 
country  knew  his  relations  to  the  matter,  and  the  evidence 
seems  to  show  that  they  did  not.  Adams's  note  of  Poinsett's 
remark  indicates  surprise,  and  Benton,  writing  of  January, 
1830,  says:  "Mr.  Calhoun  had  not  then  uncovered  his  po- 
sition in  regard  to  Nullification."  21 

A  few  indications,  too,  reach  us  from  South  Carolina. 
Thus,  the  Charleston  Courier,22  in  announcing  the  appear- 
ance of  Calhoun's  letter  of  July  26,  i83i,23  in  the  Pendleton 
Messenger,  spoke  of  it  as  an  ingenious  defense  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  "  Exposition,"  "  which  is  understood  to  have 
been  written  by  Mr.  Calhoun."  And  "  Civis  "  in  the  same 
paper  of  August  15,  while  equally  saying  that  Calhoun  had 
written  the  "  Exposition,"  yet  added  that  he  had  only  now 
at  length  announced  himself  and  had  theretofore  been  in  a 
most  pitiable  situation.  Then  the  writer  goes  on: 

It  is  believed  that  Mr.  Calhoun  was  anxious  he  should  be  con- 
cealed. It  has  been  frequently  denied  that  he  was  the  author, 
and  both  he  and  his  friends  indulged  a  hope  that  it  could  not  be 
fastened  upon  him. 

But  longer  concealment  became  impossible,  added  Civis,  and 

20 "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  237.  Poinsett  added,  it  may  be  said  as 
a  picture  of  the  time,  that  he  had  come  away  from  South  Carolina, 
"  because  it  was  in  every  respect  too  hot  for  him." 

21 "  Thirty  Years'  View,"  Vol.  I,  p.  142,  referring  to  the  Hayne- Webster 
debate. 

22  Issue  of  August   u,   1831. 

23  See  infra,  pp.  435,  436. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  423 

therefore  he  has  come  out  and  is  now  ruined,  a  laughing  stock.24 
Finally,  Judge  Richardson,  in  his  address  of  1830,  argued 
strongly  against  Nullification,  and  then  wrote  : 

Not  one  of  our  great  statesmen  has  said  that  the  constitutional 
right  to  nullify  a  federal  law  is  clear;  and  that  this  is  the  time 
for  the  people  to  practise  it.  Whatever  obscure  rumor  there  may 
be  on  the  subject,  we  cannot  trace  the  principle  up  to  any  direct 
sanction  of  our  esteemed  Vice-President. 

It  will  soon  appear,  too,  that  the  Unionists  took  the  ground 
in  1831  that  he  had  not  declared  himself  and  sought  to  drive 
him  to  do  so. 

It  is  true  that  he  had  been  connected  at  times  with  some 
toasts,  which  seemed  to  indicate  his  opinions  clearly  enough. 
Thus,  as  has  been  seen,  at  a  dinner  on  July  4,  1828,  he  had 
proposed  "  The  Congress  of  '76  —  they  taught  the  world 
how  oppression  could  be  successfully  resisted,  may  the  lesson 
teach  rulers  that  their  only  safety  is  in  justice  and  modera- 
tion/' 25  And  again,  at  a  public  dinner  given  him  at  Pendle- 
ton  in  the  end  of  March,  1831,  one  of  the  regular  toasts  was 
1  The  Union  —  May  the  period  be  indefinitely  postponed  when 
we  may  be  compelled  to  choose  between  its  dissolution,  and 
submission  to  a  government  of  unlimited  powers."  26 

Still  there  was  nothing  to  connect  him  directly  with  nullifica- 
tion, in  the  minds  of  the  multitude.  The  fact  of  his  connection 
was  evidently  denied,27  as  well  as  asserted.  Nor  is  it  likely 
that  he  wanted  his  beliefs  to  be  widely  known.  He  was 
still  burning  with  passion  to  be  President  and  had  lingering 
hopes  of  success,  while  his  open  siding  with  the  Nullifiers 
would  evidently  extinguish  for  the  time  that  dream  of  his 
ambition.  It  too  plainly  meant  the  loss  of  the  North,  and 

2*The   reader   will   bear   in-  mind   that   the   "Courier"   was   strongly 
Unionist. 
«  Ante,  Vol.  II,  p.  373- 

26  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XL,  p.  171. 

27  On  August  2i,   1831,  shortly  after  Calhoun  had  fully  announced  his 
views  on  nullification  to  the  public  in  his  letter  of  July  26  to  the  Pendleton 
"  Messenger"  (infra,  pp.  435,  436),  Duff  Green  wrote  to  Cralle  that  Cal- 
houn's  "  friends  had  been  taught  to  believe  that  he  was  not  a  nullifier." 
"  Calhoun  As   Seen  by  his   Political  Friends,"  etc.,  in  "  Publications  of 
Southern  History  Association,"  Vol.  VII,  p.  167. 


424  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

we  shall  soon  see  that  he  fully  appreciated  this  at  the  time. 
Ambition  and  mere  self-interest  may  well  have  kept  him  back 
from  hurrying  on  into  the  contest,  but  they  cannot  have 
impelled  him  to  it,  as  the  world  has  thought  they  did.  No 
wonder,  indeed,  that  he  stood  on  the  brink,  hesitating,  and 
no  wonder  that  this  course  of  his  lasted  so  long  that  the  hot 
bloods  of  South  Carolina  became  a  little  distrustful  and  even 
sought  to  dragoon  him. 

At  some  time  during  this  winter  of  1830-31,  he  had  said 
to  M.  L.  Davis,  a  well-known  writer  interested,  in  public 
affairs,  that  he  was  the  strong  man  of  the  South  for  the  Presi- 
dency and  would  receive  the  votes  of  all  those  States  except 
Georgia,  and  Davis  understood  him  to  intend  to  be  a  candidate 
against  Jackson  at  the  approaching  election.28  In  the  latter 
part  of  that  month,  too,  it  was  perfectly  apparent  (as  will  very 
shortly  be  shown)  to  Hamilton  and  Hammond 29  of  South 
Carolina  that  he  was  still  under  the  obsession  of  presidential 
hopes.  As  late  as  May,  after  those  two  leading  men  had  shown 
very  plainly  their  entire  want  of  sympathy  with  him  in  this, 
though  he  wrote  to  Hammond  on  the  i6th : 

As  to  myself,  I  feel  but  little  solicitude.  In  the  present  state 
of  things,  I  have  but  little  ambition  to  administer  the  Govern- 
ment. 

Yet  his  real  feelings  were  evidently  much  more  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  a  letter  of  the  25th  to  his  friend  Van  De venter, 
to  whom  he  wrote : 

I  am  at  perfect  liberty  to  determine  the  position  I  may  assume, 
unrestricted  by  any  other  obligation,  except  those  of  patriotism 
and  duty.  It  is  time  enough  to  take  my  stand.  An  early  de- 
velopment would  do  mischief,  instead  of  good.  Moderation  be- 
comes, in  my  situation,  alike  a  dictate  of  duty  and  prudence ;  but 
you  may  rest  assured  of  one  thing,  that  I  will  in  the  coming 
contest  act  second  to  no  one.  I  feel  that  it  would  degrade  me. 
I  will  stand  on  my  own  ground,  which  I  know  to  be  strong  in 
principle  and  the  publick  support.  I  do  not  fear  to  carry  the 

28  J.  Q.  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  333. 

20  James  H.  Hammond,  then  editor  of  the  "  Southern  Times,"  of 
Columbia. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  425 

whole  South  with  me,  acting  as  it  becomes  my  duty,  which  I 
will  take  care  to  do.  I  never  stood  stronger.  I  have  the  strong- 
est assurance  of  a  decided  and  successful  support  in  Virginia 
which  in  the  present  state  of  things  is  all  important;  but  what- 
ever strength  I  may  have,  I  will  deem  it  to  be  my  duty,  in  the 
present  critical  state  of  our  affairs,  to  direct  to  the  publick  good 
exclusively. 

Even  in  December,  he  was  not  absolutely  without  hope  and  in 
speaking  of  Jackson,  said  of  himself  that  he  "  had  it  in  his 
power  to  annihilate  him  — but  would  act  on  the  defensive."  30 

It  will  shortly  be  shown,  however,  that  long  ere  December 
he  had  cast  the  die,  which  he  had  so  long  been  balancing  in 
his  hand,  and  declared  his  views  to  the  public  in  the  fullest 
manner.  It  had  indeed,  in  May,  if  not  earlier,  grown  ap- 
parent that  he  must  do  so.  He  was  in  Columbia  in  the  middle 
of  March,  after  the  session  of  Congress,  and  had  a  long  con- 
versation with  Hammond  on  public  affairs,  of  which  the  latter 
made  extensive  notes.  These  fully  bear  out  all  that  has  been 
said  of  his  hopes  and  hesitations,  as  well  as  of  the  doubts  of 
him  entertained  by  Hammond  and  at  least  one  other  South 
Carolina  leader.  As  Hammond  writes  in  his  Memorandum :  31 

COLUMBIA,  i8th  March,  1831. 

I  called  at  7  o'clock  this  morning  at  Judge  DeSaussure's  to  see 
Mr.  Calhoun,  the  Vice  President  of  the  United  States.  He  is  on 
his  way  from  Washington  to  his  residence  in  Pendleton.  On  re- 
ceiving notice  of  his  arrival  in  town,  yesterday  morning,  I  paid 
him  a  visit  of  civility,  and  my  call  this  morning  was  in  conse- 
quence of  a  wish  wh.  he  expressed  to  have  some  private  con- 
versation with  me.  He  was  alone,  and  immediately  entered  freely 
into  the  discussion  of  the  affairs  of  the  Nation.  He  said  that 
great  changes  had  taken  and  were  taking  place  now  in  the  politi- 
cal elements  and  that  the  course  of  a  few  months  would  exhibit 
a  situation  of  parties  in  the  country  as  extraordinary,  as  it  had 
been  unexpected.  Genl.  Jackson  he  said  was  losing  the  confi- 
dence of  the  Republican  party  every  where,  and  even  Tennessee 
had  to  a  man  sustained  him  (Mr.  C)  in  the  late  rupture  wh. 

so  "  Correspondence,"  p.  305. 

si "  Nullification   in    South    Carolina,    1830-34,"    "American    Historical 
Review,"    Vol.    VI    (1900-01),    pp.    741-745- 


426  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

had  taken  place  between  himself  and  the  General.  Kentucky 
was  with  him, —  so  was  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Stevenson  and  Archer.  In  fact  three  fourths  of  the 
members  of  Congress  were  with  him  agt.  the  President.  That 
he  (Gen.  J)  had  deserted  all  his  political  positions;  he  had  first 
intimated  he  would  not  be  a  candidate  for  re-election,  and  now 
was;  that  he  would  not  appoint  members  of  Congress  to  office 
and  had  done  so  continually,  and  in  short  was  as  jealous  of  his 
military  fame,  as  ever  was  Othello  of  his  wife  and  easily  played 
upon  with  it,  by  the  cunning  men  by  whom  he  is  surrounded.  For 
these  reasons  he  thought  confidence  of  the  Republican  party  in 
General  Jackson  very  much  diminished ;  and  for  himself,  he  had 
dissolved  all  ties,  political  or  otherwise,  with  him  and  forever. 
He  did  not  think  him  as  sincere  a  man,  as  he  once  did.  With  re- 
gard to  the  opposition,  Mr.  Calhoun  thought  he  could  discern  a 
crack  in  that  party  also.  The  Tariff-men  were  beginning  to  believe 
that  to  push  their  policy  any  further  would  be  a  desperate  move- 
ment, that  would  in  all  probability  destroy  the  whole  of  it,  and 
therefore  the  most  reflecting  among  them  were  not  disposed  to 
support  Henry  Clay,  for  fear  of  his  going  too  far  with  the  sys- 
tem. Mr.  Webster  he  thought  the  only  very  prominent  man 
thoroughly  in  favor  of  Mr.  Clay.  The  members  from  Kentucky 
had  gone  home  resolved  to  push  the  election  against  Clay,  tho' 
not  in  favor  of  Jackson.  Should  they  succeed  Mr.  Clay  was  gone, 
and  his  partizans  hating  Genl.  Jackson  and  Mr.  Van  Buren  as  they 
did,  would  unite  upon  any  man  to  put  him  out.  They  would  even 
take  him  (Mr.  C)  with  nullification  on  his  head.  (Judge  Mar- 
tin82 was  in  the  room  and  heard  this  expression  also.)  In  this 
state  of  affairs  he  thought  best  for  the  South  to  stand  uncom- 
mitted on  the  Presidential  question  and  to  rally  and  concentrate 
her  strength  in  pushing  the  principles  for  which  she  had  been 
of  late  contending.  He  then  spoke  of  the  three  great  interests 
of  the  Nation,  The  North,  The  South  and  the  West.  They  had 
been  struggling  in  a  fierce  war  with  each  other  and  he  thought 
the  period  was  approaching  that  was  to  determine  whether  they 
could  be  reconciled  or  not  so  as  to  perpetuate  the  Union.  He 
was  of  opinion  that  they  could.  The  interest  of  the  North  was 
a  manufacturing  and  protecting  one,  that  of  the  South  Free 
Trade,  and  that  of  the  West  was  involved  in  the  distribution  of 
the  lands  and  Internal  Improvements.  How  were  they  to  be 

*2  William  D.  Martin,  whose  term  as  M.  C.  had  just  expired. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  427 

reconciled?  The  West  must  have  some  visible  appropriations  to 
counter-balance  those  for  the  improvement  of  the  Harbours,  for- 
tifications &c  of  the  Atlantic  States,  of  which  they  were  exceed- 
ingly jealous.  And  in  the  distribution  of  every  acre  of  the 
public  land  they  felt  a  deep  solicitude.  He  would  therefore 
gratify  them  with  a  system  of  internal  improvements.  And  here 
he  spoke  fully  and  freely  of  his  opinions  on  this  subject.  He 
said  he  had  always  doubted  of  the  Constitutionality  of  Internal 
Improvements  and  that  in  all  his  Reports  and  Speeches  on  the 
subject,  he  had  never  once  committed  himself  on  the  Constitu- 
tional ground.  .  .  .  Mr.  Clay,  he  said,  had  seized  upon  In.  Im. 
as  a  hobby  and  ridden  it  to  death.  Carried  it  much  further 
than  he  ever  intended  to  do  and  made  it  odious.  In  fact  for  the 
last  five  years,  he  said,  he  had  seen  that  it  would  not  do  and  had 
told  his  friends  in  Congress  that  the  system,  as  carried  on,  must 
be  arrested.  Mr.  Calhoun  proposed  to  amend  the  Constitution 
for  the  purpose  of  making  these  In.  Im.  and  to  make  the  public 
lands  the  great  fund  to  be  set  apart  for  that  purpose.  He  did  not 
agree  with  Mr.  Hayne,  in  his  project  of  giving  these  lands  away, 
wh.  would  at  once  unsettle  the  whole  landed  property  of  the  U.  S. 
Nor  did  he  think  as  well  of  Mr.  Webster's  plan  of  doling  them 
away  by  littles  to  the  people,  thus  constituting  them  a  great 
gambling  fund,  for  corrupt  speculations.  The  advantages  to  the 
South  from  this  system  would  be  very  great.  By  connecting  the 
channels  of  the  West  with  those  to  the  Atlantic  it  would  bring 
the  trade  at  once  to  its  point  [port?]  thro'  the  Southern  States. 
He  spoke  of  the  Union  of  the  Ohio  and  the  Kenhawa  wh.  would 
make  Virginia  one  state.  Of  the  trade  that  would  come  to 
Charleston  through  the  Saluda  Gap  wh.  together  with  a  rail-road 
from  that  city  to  Florence  on  the  Tennessee  River,  and  a  canal 
thro'  the  cape  of  Florida  would  make  it  the  great  City  of  the 
South.  The  Free  Trade  System  was  that  of  the  South  and  thus 
would  she  reap  the  advantages.  He  did  not  dwell  upon  this 
latter  proposition,  but  showed  that  in  this  manner  the  interests  of 
the  West  and  South  might  readily  be  reconciled.  But  how  was 
the  North  to  be  prevailed  on  to  give  up  the  protecting  sys- 
tem? 

r.  Calhoun  said  that  he  was  for  direct  taxation  ultimately,  but 
at  present  he  aimed  only  at  reducing  the  Tariff  down  to  the 
Revenue  point  —  about  Eleven  or  Twelve  millions  per  annum,  wh. 
would  enable  the  government  to  pay  the  civil  list  handsomely. 


428  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

He  said  he  was  no  radical  in  this  and  thought  the  government 
should  be  liberal  in  its  constitutional  expenditures.  The  Tariff 
at  this  point  might  be  so  adjusted  as  to  suit  the  Northern  people 
better  than  it  did  now.  The  general  increase  of  duty  on  every 
article  had  diminished  the  profits  of  each  individually  by  adding 
to  the  cost  of  every  thing  necessary  to  the  production  of  each 
manufacturer.  He  would  propose  to  single  out  some  of  the  most 
important  articles  and  giving  them  a  liberal  protection,  enhance 
their  profits  still  further  by  lowering  the  duties  upon  all  (or) 
nearly  all  the  other  articles  of  necessary  consumption.  He  said 
that  the  Northern  manufacturers,  if  they  took  an  extended  view 
of  things,  must  look  to  a  foreign  market  and  with  that  object  it 
would  be  their  desire  and  their  most  urgent  interest,  to  cheapen 
everything  in  the  country  but  their  own  peculiar  manufactures. 
Taking  this  view  of  it,  he  thought  the  Northern  people  might 
easily  be  induced  to  lower  the  Tariff  to  the  revenue  point  and 
thus  reconcile  the  interests  of  the  North  and  South.  This  is  a 
pretty  full  view  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  plan  of  reconciliation.  He 
thought  it  practicable  —  at  all  events  worth  trying.  If  it  failed 
or  matters  continued  going  forward  as  they  now  did  he  looked 
upon  disunion  as  inevitable.  And  he  thought  it  best,  for  the 
system  of  plunder  such  as  it  was  now  was  the  most  despicable  of 
all  possible  forms  of  government.  For  his  part  he  would  not 
administer  the  government  as  it  was  now  operating.  He  re- 
garded it  as  a  despicable  ambition.  It  would  be  administering 
an  insolvent  estate, —  and  one,  said  Judge  Martin  who  had  en- 
tered the  room  during  our  conversation,  that  would  soon  have  to 
plead  plene  administravit.  If  things  could  be  fixed  upon  the 
basis  he  proposed  the  government  would  be  strengthened,  and  re- 
gain the  confidence  of  the  people.  It  would  prevent  the  traffic 
of  interests  now  carried  on.  In  this  game  the  North  could  beat 
us.  We  being  the  payer  and  they  the  receiver  they  could  outbid 
us  with  the  West  and  always  wd.  do  it. 

When  I  started  to  come  away  Mr.  Calhoun  took  his  hat,  and  we 
walked  together  for  some  distance.  He  then  hinted  pretty 
strongly  that  if  things  went  right,  he  might  be  placed  in  nomination 
for  the  Presidency  next  fall.  I  told  him  candidly  that  such  a  step 
would  be  imprudent  at  this  moment  both  at  home  and  abroad,  and 
should  not  be  thought  of  at  this  time.  He  agreed  with  me.  He 
said  his  object  was  to  throw  himself  entirely  upon  the  South  and  if 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION          429 

possible  to  be  more  Southern  if  possible  [sic].  In  advancing  our 
principles  therefore,  we  should  advance  him  in  the  only  way  in 
wh.  he  desired  to  be  advanced. 

This  I  believe  is  a  correct  outline  of  the  long  interesting  inter- 
view wh.  I  had  with  Mr.  Calhoun.  To  many  of  his  projects  I 
could  not  yield  my  assent,  and  his  fine  theory  —  if  sound  and  re- 
publican—  I  fear  will  be  found  impracticable. 

I  dined  with  Mr.  Calhoun  to-day  at  Judge  D's  and  took  tea 
with  him  at  Major  Taylor's.  He  is  much  less  disposed  to 
harangue  than  usual.  There  is  a  listlessness  about  him  wh. 
shows  that  his  mind  is  deeply  engaged  and  no  doubt  that  it  is  on 
the  subject  of  the  Presidency.  He  is  unquestionably  quite  fever- 
ish under  the  present  excitement  and  his  hopes. 

Nearly  three  months  later,  on  June  n,  Hamilton  in  turn 
wrote  as  follows  to  Hammond  from  Charleston, —  and  his  let- 
ter33 shows  clearly  the  same  general  tendencies  on  his  part 
and  the  same  inclination  to  be  a  little  mistrustful  of  Calhoun's 
course : 

...  I  have  seen  with  great  regret  the  course  which  Green  34 
is  pursuing  towards  us  and  Mr.  Calhoun.  He  will  ruin  the 
latter  if  he  is  not  checked.  Green  has  certainly  got  into  his  head, 
I  hope  without  Mr.  Calhoun's  sanction,  that  by  compromising 
with  the  Manufacturers  that  he  can  be  elected.  Indeed  Green 
has  written  me  a  long  Epistle  on  the  subject,  holding  out  the  most 
alluring  probabilities  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  success  and  of  the  willing- 
ness of  the  Manufacturers  to  compromise  with  us  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  his  speech  in  1816.  I  have  replied  very  explicitly  to  him 
that  in  no  shape  lot  or  scot  would  we  be  included  in  the  arrange- 
ment, that  we  would  take  no  part  in  the  presidential  election  and 
that  I  was  quite  sure  that  Mr.  Calhoun's  prospects  were  as  hope- 
less as  his  ruin  would  be  certain,  if  he  was  brought  to  give  his 
countenance  to  such  a  compact.  He  also  civilly  asked  if  we  were 
all  crazy  at  McDuffie's  dinner  [shortly  to  be  mentioned],  if  we 
intended  to  start  into  open  rebellion  and  insure  the  empire  of  the 
wh — e  of  Washington  (Mrs.  E.,  I  suppose).  To  these  civil 
things  my  reply  was  brief  and  explicit.  That  ...  we  should 
go  on  and  abate  not  one  jot  of  our  zeal  in  the  support  of  our 
principles,  which  we  would  sacrifice  to  the  elevation  of  no  man 


3*  Ibid.,  pp.  746,  747. 

3*  Editor  of  the  "  U.  S.  Telegraph." 


430  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

on  earth.  That  as  for  surrendering  Nullification,  which  he 
kindly  recommended,  that  this  was  as  impossible  as  his  proposed 
league  between  the  Nullifiers  and  the  Manufacturers  which  in 
itself  was  as  practicable  as  a  confederation  between  the  Poles 
and  the  Cossacks.  I  have  no  doubt  he  moves  in  this  matter  with 
Calhoun's  sanction.  Mr.  Calhoun  has  too  much  sense  not  to  see 
the  essential  weakness  of  his  occupying  a  double  position,  Janus 
faced,  with  one  expression  of  countenance  for  one  side  of  the 
Potomac  and  another  expression  for  the  other.  .  .  .  P.  S.  I  en- 
closed Mr.  Calhoun  copies  of  Green's  letter  to  me  and  my  letter 
in  reply,  in  order  that  he  might  see  the  whole  ground.  If  G. 
continues  this  course  we  shall  have  to  be  even  more  explicit  than 
we  have  been  in  the  short  editorial  which  Pinckney  [of  the 
Charleston  Mercury]  put  forth  a  few  Days  since.35 

Events  were  now  moving  fast.  While  McDuffie  was  in 
Charleston  in  May  a  dinner  was  given  him  on  the  iQth,  and 
the  toasts,  even  more  than  his  speech,  were  most  outspoken  for 
nullification.  One  of  them  read : 

"Nullification  —  The  only  rightful  remedy  of  an  injured 
State.  In  itself,  peaceful  and  constitutional.  It  can  never 
lead  to  Disunion  or  Civil  War,  unless  an  unjust  Government 
should  grow  so  bold  in  usurpation  as  to  seal  its  tyrannv  with 
blood."  36 

It  will  have  been  observed  that  Green  was  inclined  to  think 
that  everybody  had  been  crazy  on  this  occasion.  On  the  other 
hand,  some  correspondent  wrote  a  Philadelphia  newspaper  as 
follows  in  regard  to  McDuffie's  speech : 

Never  have  I  listened  to  anything  half  so  magnificent  in  elo- 
quence or  half  so  powerful  in  argument.  I  have  heard  most  of 
the  great  speakers  of  the  United  States,  but  could  form  no  con- 
ception from  their  efforts,  of  such  a  display  of  "  might  of  mind  " 
and  splendor  of  oratory  as  I  listened  to  on  this  occasion.  Indeed 
no  words  can  convey  to  you  an  adequate  idea  of  the  electric  power 

38  Probably  referring  to  an  editorial  in  the  issue  of  June  9,  which  is, 
however,  not  very  short  but  is  aimed  mainly  against  Green  and  the  "U. 
S.  Telegraph."  It  says  that  any  compromise  of  Southern  rights  with  the 
manufacturers  is  absolutely  impossible.  I  could  not  find  any  later  and 
more  explicit  warning.  For  many  months  later  Green  was  still  trying  to 
secure  the  nomination  of  Calhoun :  see  infra.  Vol.  II,  pp.  222-226. 

86  The  Charleston  "  Mercury,"  May  ai,  1831. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  451 

with  which  his  occasional  bursts  of  indignation  at  our  oppression 
swept  with  them  the  entranced  feelings  of  his  hearers.  Yet  the 
main  current,  and  almost  the  entire  stream  of  his  argument, 
flowed  on  in  a  calm,  clear,  and  dignified  course  of  the  most  rigid 
and  powerful  logic  to  which  I  have  ever  listened.87 

To  this  may  be  added  that  Hamilton  wrote  to  Hammond : 
In  the  excellence  of  the  tact  which  he  displayed  in  adapting 
his  speech  to  the  crisis  and  the  community  in  which  it  was  deliv- 
ered, he  was  almost  seemingly  inspired.38 

The  Speech  of  McDuffie  30  was  in  great  part  an  elaboration 
of  the  theory  that  our  tariff  laws  operated  "to  impose  a 
burthen  upon  the  planters,  as  such,  independent  of  the  burthens 
they  bear  in  common  with  all  other  classes,  as  the  consumers 
of  taxed  articles."  Various  cases  were  put  to  illustrate  his 
meaning,  such  as  free  tea  on  which  a  heavy  tax  is  then  laid, 
with  the  result  that  the  consumer  by  no  means  pays  such  tax 
but  buys  less  tea,  so  that  the  producer  must  either  accept  a  lower 
price  or  at  once  greatly  curtail  production.  Again,  to  show 
that  the  tariff  was  in  effect  an  excise  duty  on  exportation,  he 
supposes  two  ships  laden  with  cotton,  and  in  all  respects  identi- 
cal, bound  for  Liverpool.  One  is,  however,  compelled  to  pay 
an  export  duty  before  sailing  and  can  buy  much  less  of  a  re- 
turn cargo;  but  the  other  ship  starting  home  with  a  larger 
cargo  (but  subject  to  import  duties)  finds  upon  arrival  that 
she  is  mulcted  largely  and  is  finally  left  in  precisely  the  same 
condition  as  the  first  vessel.  An  illustration  of  essen- 
tially local  flavor  was  that  of  three  bakers  in  Charleston, — 
"one  north  of  Broad  Street."  A  tax  is  put  on  him  alone 
and  he  assured  the  consumer  will  pay  it,  but  sad  experience 
soon  demonstrates  the  contrary. 

Finally,  coming  down  to  Nullification,  McDuffie  said  he  was 
perfectly  ready  to  concede  that  a  State  could  not  nullify  an 
Act  of  Congress  by  virtue  of  any  power  derived  from  the 
Constitution  (as  some  have  strangely  enough  thought  that 

37  Quoted  in  the  "  National  Intelligencer "  of  June  7,  1831. 

88  "  Nullification  in  South  Carolina,  1830-34,"  "  American  Historical  Re- 
view," Vol.  VI  (1000-01).  p.  746. 

"Reprinted  in  the  "National  Intelligencer"  of  June  7,  1831,  probably 
from  the  Charleston  "  Mercury  "  of  May  35. 


432  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

Calhoun  argued)  :  "  it  would  be  a  perfect  solecism  to  suppose 
any  such  power  was  conferred  by  the  Constitution.  The 
right  flows  from  a  higher  source."  40  And  in  answer  to  the 
talk  of  treason  and  threats  of  consequent  war  and  tumult,  he 
burst  out: 

"  Shall  we  be  terrified  by  mere  phantoms  of  blood,  when 
our  ancestors,  for  less  cause,  encountered  the  dreadful  reality? 
Great  God!  are  we  the  descendants  of  those  ancestors?  Are 
we  freemen  —  are  we  men  —  grown  men  —  to  be  frightened 
from  the  discharge  of  our  most  sacred  duty,  and  the  vindication 
of  our  most  sacred  rights,  by  the  mere  nursery  story  of  raw 
head  and  bloody  bones,  which  even  the  women  of  our  country 
laugh  to  scorn?  The  idea  of  bloodshed  and  civil  war,  in  a 
contest  of  this  kind,  is  utterly  ridiculous  "...  One  can  to 
some  extent  imagine  the  scene  when  told  that  McDuffie's  ges- 
ticulation was  at  times  so  violent  that  a  hearer  once  asked  her 
neighbor  whether  his  fists  would  not  "  fly  off  and  hit  some- 
body/'41 

It  may  be  surmised  that  this  dinner  to  McDuffie  was  ar- 
ranged by  Hamilton  and  Hammond  and  their  friends  for  the 
very  purpose  of  precipitating  Nullification.  It  was  given  at 
the  same  time  when,  as  has  been  seen,  they  thought  Calhoun 
quite  too  slow,  and  Hamilton's  already  quoted  admiration 
of  the  speech  is  quite  consistent  with  his  having  had  a  part  in 
arranging  for  its  delivery.  Beyond  doubt,  the  mine  for  Nul- 
lification was  fired  on  that  iQth  day  of  May. 

Calhoun  was  very  much  displeased  at  the  whole  occurrence 

40  It  has  been  maintained  from  these  words  that  McDuffie  was  not  at 
heart  a  nullifier,  but  I  can  attribute  no  such  meaning  to  them.  The  last 
short  sentence  quoted  seems  on  the  contrary,  to  establish  conclusively  that 
in  his  opinion  the  right  did  exist.  His  words  as  to  a  perfect  solecism  are 
probably  what  has  led  to  the  conclusion  on  the  part  of  some,  but  the  ex- 
pression only  states  what  every  nullifier  would  have  admitted  and  even 
have  insisted  on.  They  all  maintained  that  the  right  arose  from  the 
surrounding  circumstances  and  not  at  all  from  the  constitution.  It  is 
plain,  however,  that  McDuffie  was,  at  least  at  an  early  date,  not  enamored 
of  the  remedy  and  doubted  its  efficacy.  O'Neall  writes  ("Bench  and  Bar," 
Vol.  II,  p.  466)  that  he  knew  from  a  conversation  with  McDuffie  in  Decem- 
ber, 1830,  that  he  had  no  faith  in  "  Nullification  as  a  peaceable  and  Constitu- 
tional measure.  He  believed  in  revolution  as  the  only  measure  of  re- 
dress." 

41Josiah  Quincy's  "Figures  of  the  Past,"  p.  283,  as  cited  in  Houston's 
"  Nullification,"  p.  37. 


FAC-SIMILE  OF  LETTER  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 


7,  />. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  433 

and  at  the  crisis  in  South  Carolina's  course  which  it  precipi- 
tated. Small  wonder,  too,  in  view  of  the  presidential  hopes 
he  expressed  at  nearly  the  same  time  in  the  letter  of  May  25  to 
Van  Deventer,  already  quoted.  Green,  too  (so  Calhoun  adds) , 
was  in  "  embarrassment  and  distress  "  at  the  matter,  and  Ing- 
ham  wrote  Calhoun,  evidently  to  the  same  effect.  To  the 
latter  Calhoun  replied  on  June  16  that  "  the  occurrence  in 
Charleston  to  me  was  wholly  unexpected.  ...  I  think  it  every 
way  imprudent,  and  have  so  written  to  Hamilton.  I  see  clearly 
it  brings  matters  to  a  crisis ;  and  that  I  must  meet  it,  promptly 
and  manfully.  I  intended  to  wait  for  Mr.  Crawford's  move 
[  ?]  on  me,  so  as  to  have  the  great  advantage  of  acting  on  the 
defensive";  and  then  he  sketches  his  plan  of  a  letter  to  a 
near-by  home  newspaper,  very  much  as  it  appeared  in  July. 

During  all  this  time  the  political  struggle  in  South  Carolina 
between  the  Nullifiers  and  Unionists  was  seething.  On  July  4, 
1831,  monster  meetings  were  held  in  Charleston  by  both  parties, 
and  there  was  no  little  danger  of  violence.  Hayne,  possibly 
called  upon  for  the  purpose42  with  Calhoun's  consent,  now  that 
the  contest  was  evidently  unavoidable,  put  Nullification  forth 
definitely  as  his  party's  policy.  His  address  43  seems  to  bear 
evidence  that  he  was  not  highly  enamored  of  the  remedy,  and 
perhaps  not  thoroughly  conversant  with  all  the  refinements  of 
the  doctrine,  and  he  more  than  once  emphasizes  the  fact  that  it 
was  chosen  because  it  was  short  of  disunion.  No  one  can,  I 
think,  read  the  address  without  feeling,  what  every  known  ut- 
terance of  Hayne  bears  out,  that  he  was  deeply  devoted  to 
the  Union  and  most  anxious  for  some  means  of  preserving  it, 
at  the  same  time  that  he  was, —  pro  aris  et  focis, —  engaged 
in  the  excentric  Nullification  contest.  The  sacred  fanes  of 
home  and  their  defense  were,  in  his  associates'  eyes,  their  very 
highest  duty  on  earth. 

"What  then,  my  countrymen,"  he  said,  after  reviewing 
the  history  of  the  matter,  "  remains  to  be  done?  Are  you  for 
submission?  No!  That  is  impossible.  What  then?  Shall 
we  dissolve  the  Union?  God  forbid.  .  .  .  [Retreat  is  impos- 

42  Tervey's  "  Hayne,"  p.  287. 

43  Pamphletyn  Charleston  Library  Society. 


434  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

sible.  You  must  advance.  Should  all  arguments  fail  and  only 
the  alternative  be  left  of  submission  or]  the  interposition  of 
the  sovereign  authority  of  the  State,  I  say  with  Mr.  Jefferson 
'  there  ought  to  be  no  hesitation.'  But  this  We  are  told 
will  be  Nullification.  Be  it  so.  When  nullification  shall  be 
our  only  means  of  deliverance  from  this  oppression,  who  is 
there  that  would  not  be  a  nullifierf  .  .  .  We  will  take  any 
remedy  that  may  be  proposed  to  us,  short  of  disunion,  .  .  . 
call  it  Nullification  or  call  it  what  you  will.  ...  By  Nulli- 
fication, then,  we  understand  nothing  more  than  such  an  inter- 
position of  State  sovereignty,  as  may  be  effectual  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  State  Rights.  ...  I  consider  Nullification  by  a 
State,  therefore,  simply  as  a  high  act  of  sovereignty,  by  which 
she  makes  known  to  her  sister  States  that  she  deems  her  con- 
stitutional rights  violated  in  so  essential  a  particular  that  she 
cannot  consent  to  submit  to  the  violation  ...  it  brings  about 
a  crisis,  but  it  is  no  dissolution  of  the  Union.  .  .  .  Nullifica- 
tion, as  I  understand  it,  consists  in  no  particular  act.  It  is  ... 
the  rendering  an  act,  which  she  deems  unconstitutional,  null, 
void,  and  of  no  force  within  her  limits,  .  .  .  We  have  been 
charged  with  being  enemies  to  the  Union.  In  the  indignant 
spirit  of  insulted  patriotism,  you  have,  in  the  face  of  the 
world,  and  with  one  voice,  hurled  back  the  slander  on  the 
heads  of  its  propagators.  For  myself  (and  I  know  I  may 
say  the  same  for  you),  I  speak  in  the  perfect  sincerity  of  my 
heart  when  I  declare  my  entire  devotion  to  the  Union.  To 
preserve  it  I  would  do  all  that  may  become  a  patriot,  who 
would  do  more  is  none."  44  He  closed  with  the  well-known 
words  of  the  X  Y  Z  episode,  which  were  inscribed  on  a 
flag  then  presented,  "  Millions  for  defense,  but  not  one  cent  for 
tribute/' 

The  Union  meeting  of  the  same  date  was  perhaps  chiefly 

44  In  his  speech  at  the  Charleston  Dinner  of  July  4,  1830,  to  himself 
and  Drayton,  Hayne  had  said,  what  not  every  Charlestonian  of  that  day 
could  have  said :  "  For  my  single  self,  I  am  free  to  declare  that  I  cherish 
a  sincere  and  ardent  devotion  to  the  Union,  and  that  to  preserve  it  in- 
violate, I  would  willingly  lay  down  my  life."  He  closed  with  a  splendid 
and  moving  flight  of  eloquence  as  to  all  his  ties  being  with  South  Carolina 
and  that  by  her  he  would  stand.  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XXXVIII,  p. 
380- 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  435 

noteworthy  for  the  letter  of  Jackson,  in  which  the  President 
came  out  distinctly  against  the  Nullifiers,  and  aimed  to  soothe 
the  Unionists'  well-known  opposition  to  the  tariff  by  the 
honeyed  words  that  their  "patriotic  efforts  .  .  .  cannot  be 
forwarded  more  effectually  than  by  inculcating  a  reliance  on  the 
justice  of  the  National  Councils,  and  pointing  to  the  fast  ap- 
proaching extinction  of  the  public  debt  as  an  event  which 
must  necessarily  produce  modification  in  the  revenue  system, 
by  which  all  interests,  under  a  spirit  of  mutual  accommodation 
and  concession,  will  be  probably 45  protected."  More  impor- 
tant to  us  here,  however,  was  one  of  the  toasts  aimed  directly 
at  Calhoun  and  evidently  designed  to  force  a  complete  an- 
nouncement of  his  position.  It  read : 

"The  Vice-President  of  the  United  States:  His  political 
intimates  have  declared  their  sentiments  on  Nullification, — 
will  he  shrink  from  an  open  exposition  of  his  own  ?  "  46 

Whatever  may  have  been  Calhoun's  secret  wishes  and  hesi- 
tations, the  hint  of  Judge  Richardson's  pamphlet  of  1830, 
this  sharp  jibe  of  the  Unionists,  McDuffie's  speech  and  the 
seething  caldron  of  the  political  struggle,  made  silence  impos- 
sible any  longer.  It  was  announced  in  the '  Pendleton  Mes- 
senger 47  of  July  27,  1831,  that  he  would  soon  "  place  his  senti- 
ments before  the  public  without  reserve  "  in  reference  to  Nul- 
lification, and  his  well-known  letter  48  of  July  26  was  printed 
in  that  paper's  next  issue  (August  3).  It  was  outspoken 
enough  for  any  one  and  put  him  absolutely  with  the  Nullifiers, 
on  the  basis  of  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions,  the 
Report  of  Madison  in  Virginia  and  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Pennsylvania  in  Cobbett's  case.  Thus  he  formulated 
the  primordial  principle  of  our  system : 

The  great  and  fundamental  distinction  is  that  the  General  Gov- 

45  This  word  ought  presumably  to  be  "  properly,"  but  the  reading  in  the 
text  is  given  both  in  Capers's  "  Memminger "  and  in  the  contemporary 
Niles  (Vol.  XL,  p.  351). 

46  H.  D.  Capers's  "Life  and  Times  of  C.  G.  Memminger,"  pp.  37-105, 
43.    Jervey's  "  Hayne,"  pp.  200,  291. 

47  The  Charleston  "  Courier,"  August  4  and  n,  1831.    See  also  40  Niles's 
"Register"  (July  23,  1831),  p.  361. 

*8  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  59-94.    Niles's  "  Register"  (August  20,  1831), 
Vol.  XL,  pp.  437-45- 


436  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

ernment  emanated  from  the  people  of  the  several  States,  forming 
distinct  political  communities,  and  acting  in  their  separate  and 
sovereign  capacity,  and  not  from  all  of  the  people  forming  one 
aggregate  political  community.  .  .  .  This  right  of  [State]  inter- 
position ...  I  conceive  to  be  the  fundamental  principle  of  our 
system,  resting  on  facts  historically  as  certain  as  our  revolution 
itself,  and  deductions  as  simple  and  demonstrative  as  that  of  any 
political  or  moral  truth  whatever ;  and  I  firmly  believe  that  on  its 
recognition  depend  the  stability  and  safety  of  our  political  insti- 
tutions. ...  I  yield  to  none,  I  trust,  in  a  deep  and  sincere  at- 
tachment to  our  political  institutions  and  the  union  of  these 
States.  I  never  breathed  an  opposite  sentiment.  .  .  . 

Later  on  in  the  letter,  the  subject  of  the  tariff  was  argued 
again,  without  material  change  from  what  he  had  written  in 
the  "  Exposition,"  but  with  the  more  pronounced  conclusion 
that  "  were  there  no  exports,  there  would  be  no  tariff."  And 
the  curious  reader,  fond  of  tracing  the  evolution  of  thought, 
or  rather  of  expression,  will  find  here  a  further  development 
of  that  principle  which  Calhoun  came  soon  to  call  the  doc- 
trine of  the  "  concurrent  majorities,"  and  which  had  been 
touched  upon  in  the  Exposition.  The  exact  name49  is  still 
wanting,  but  the  whole  idea  is  there,  as  it  had  indeed  been  in 
numbers  of  governments  of  modern  days  as  well  as  of  anti- 
quity. Calhoun  only  analyzed  and  explained  the  matter,  giv- 
ing it  a  name  and  showing  clearly  enough  its  existence  in  our 
system.  He  usually  led  up  to  the  subject  by  arguing  the 
tyranny  of  a  mere  numerical  majority. 

Calhoun  evidently  appreciated  the  importance  to  himself  of 
this  step,  and  in  sending  copies  of  the  letter  to  Van  Deventer 
and  Gouverneur  wrote  of  the  great  doubt  in  regard  to  how 
it  would  be  received  at  the  North.  "  I  can  scarcely  hope  for 
the  concurrence  of  my  northern  friends,"  so  he  wrote  the  latter 
and  added  in  a  second  letter,  "  I  know  I  am  right.  I  have 

49  In  the  Address  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  which  he  prepared 
for  the  legislative  session  of  November-December,  1831,  he  uses  the  term 
"  compounded  majority,"  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  136.  "  Concurring  ma- 
jorities "  first  appears  in  the  letter  to  Governor  Hamilton  of  August  28, 
1832,  "Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  152,  181.  In  his  later  writings,  "concurrent" 
is  always  used.  See  his  "  Disquisition  on  Government,"  passim,  "  Works," 
Vol.  I,  pp.  1-107. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  437 

gone  over  the  whole  subject,  with  more  care,  than  I  ever 
did  any  other;  and  feel  that  I  cannot  be  mistaken."  50 

Can  the  sincerity  of  this  man  be  doubted  ?  He  was  human 
and  perhaps  mistaken,  but  struggling  to  find  a  remedy  for  what 
he  and  every  South  Carolinian  to  a  man  believed  to  be  great 
wrongs  to  his  home  and  his  neighbors,  he  took  up  and  greatly 
elaborated  a  theory  of  our  Government  as  old  as  our  birth 
and  never  quite  abandoned,  and  then  is  charged  with  having 
done  so  because  of  political  disappointment.  It  has  already 
been  shown  that  his  new  views  were  formed  by  him  and  that 
many  knew  of  them,  long  before  there  was  cause  for  disap- 
pointment, and  recent  pages  have  shown  that  he  several  times 
hesitated  and  held  back  from  the  final  plunge,  well  knowing  its 
serious  effects  on  his  ambition. 

The  South  Carolina  Legislature  met  again  in  November, 
1831.  Many  subjects  of  importance  were  to  come  before  it. 
Calhoun  had,  presumably  at  the  request  of  some  members, 
prepared  for  the  session  two  papers,51 — a  Report  and  an  Ad- 
dress,—  but  neither  was  used,  and  one  of  them  at  least  was 
said  to  have  been  "  suppressed,  greatly  to  his  mortification 
and  indignation."  Perhaps,  as  with  the  "  Exposition,"  por- 
tions of  them  were  thought  too  ultra,  or  injudicious  under  the 
circumstances. 

In  regard  to  the  tariff,  the  Legislature  resolved  shortly  that 

50  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  296-300;  and  see  p.  302. 

51  Report  prepared   for   the   Committee   on   Federal   Relations   of   the 
Legislature  of  South  Carolina,  at  its  session  in  November,  1831  ("Works," 
Vol.  VI,  pp.  94-123),  and  Address  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina  pre- 
pared for  the  members  of  the  Legislature  at  the  close  of  the  session  of  1831 
(ibid.,  pp.  124-144).     R.  B.  Rhett  wrote  Cralle  in  1854,  saying  that  Cralle 
ought  to  include  in  the  Works  he  was  editing  Calhoun's  "  Addresses  to  the 
People  of  the  United  States  and  of  South  Carolina.     He  wished  to  have 
them  put  forth.    They  were  read  to  the  South  Carolina  delegation  in  Con- 
gress to  obtain  their  judgment  upon  them.     They  were  suppressed,  and 
greatly  to  his  mortification  and  indignation."  ^  "  R.  B.  Rhett  on  the  Biog- 
raphy of  Calhoun,  1854 " ;  by  Gaillard  Hunt  in  "  American  Historical  Re- 
view," 1907-8,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  310-12.    Rhett's  words  doubtless  refer  in  part 
to  the  above  cited  "  Address  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina/'  but  perhaps 
not  to  the  Report  for  the  Committee  on  Federal  Relations,  which  (though 
it  was  equally  not  used)   is  not  at  all  in  the  form  of  an  address.    His 
letter  is  dated  some  22  years  after  the  event,  and  it  may  be  that  by  the 
"  Address  to  the  People  of  the  United  States  "  he  meant  the  paper  that 
Calhoun  wrote  for  the  Nullification  Convention  a  year  later.    "  Works," 
Vol.  VI,  pp.  193-209,  and  see  infra,  pp.  448,  449. 


438  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

"  their  opinion  is  unchanged,"  while  Jackson's  letter  to  the 
July  4  meeting  of  the  Union  party,  was  attacked  as  "  an  un- 
authorized interference  in  the  affairs  of  this  State " ;  "  Is 
this  Legislature  to  be  schooled  and  rated  by  the  President  of 
the  United  States  ?  "  they  asked.  But  they  also  found  reason 
to  resolve  "  we  regard  with  high  gratification  the  sentiment  ex- 
pressed in  his  late  message  that  the  tariff  ought  to  be  reduced 
to  the  wants  of  Government."  52  These  words  refer  of  course 
to  the  presidential  message  of  December,  1831,  which  omitted 
for  the  first  time  all  reference  to  the  distribution  of  the  sur- 
plus and  did  recommend,  as  soon  as  the  debt  should  be  paid, 
a  reduction  of  the  tariff  "  to  the  wants  of  Government  and  an 
adjustment  of  the  duties  on  imports  with  a  view  to  equal  justice 
in  relation  to  all  our  national  interests." 

Jackson  was  much  pleased  with  this  move  on  his  part  and 
wrote  Van  Buren,  on  November  I4,53  in  regard  to  the  draft 
of  his  intended  message  and  particularly  this  clause,  which,  he 
said,  "  wall  annihilate  the  nullifiers  as  they  will  be  left  without 
any  pretext  of  complaint."  The  South  Carolinians  seem  to 
have  been  more  sincere  and  not  to  have  been  playing  politics, 
for  we  are  told  that  for  a  time  after  this  utterance  they  once 
more  had  hopes  of  relief,  without  Nullification.54 

The  administration  and  not  a  few  of  the  leaders  were  evi- 
dently in  favor  of  real  reductions,  and  we  are  told  on  good  au- 
thority 5S  that  "  the  anxious  wish  of  the  administration  is  to 
make  a  compromise  in  relation  to  the  tariff,"  or  again,  as 
Livingston  expressed  it,56  that  a  measure  to  compromise  the 
tariff  would  "  win  Jackson's  heart."  Adams,  too,  who  had 
just  re-entered  the  political  field  in  that  sphere  where  his  real 
reputation  was  destined  to  be  made  and  who  was  chairman  of 
the  House  Committee  on  Manufactures,  told  his  associates  that 

52  South  Carolina  Laws,  1831,  pp.  28  and  57. 

53  Van  Buren  Collection,  in  Library  of  Congress. 
64  Calhoun's  "  Autobiography,"  p.  41. 

55  James  A.  Hamilton's  "  Reminiscences,"  p.  243. 

56  "  Life  of  Charles  J.  Ingersoll,"  by  William  M.  Meigs,  p.  175.    Inger- 
soll  was  in  Washington  in  February  and  March  of  1832",  and  had  several 
conferences  with  Livingston,  chiefly  in  regard  to  the  bank.    They  talked 
of  a  plan  to  introduce  as  administration  measures,  bills  to  re-charter  the 
bank  with  modifications  (which  latter  seem  to  have  been  both  shown  to 
Jackson  and  agreed  to  by  him)  and  to  compromise  the  tariff. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  439 

he  "  became  from  day  to  day  more  fully  convinced  that  this 
system  of  minimums  must  be  abandoned,  or  there  would  be  an 
insurrection  in  the  South."  He  sounded  Webster  on  this 
point,  but  found  no  encouragement.57 

South  Carolinians,  both  Unionists  and  Nullifiers,  were  pres- 
ent in  Washington  and  active  in  this  late  struggle  of  the  long 
contest.  Poinsett  was  there,  and  wrote  his  friend  Judge  Hop- 
kinson  on  February  9 : 58 

I  am  here  begging  that  something  may  be  done  to  pacify  the 
south,  but  doubt  if  I  shall  succeed.  Both  parties  are  obstinate. 
I  think  it  probable  that  Congress  will  not  act  definitely  upon 
either  of  the  great  questions  before  them  but  postpone  both 
Bank  and  Tariff  bills.  Van  Buren's  rejection  has  thrown  the 
camp  into  great  confusion.  His  friends  now  wish  to  have  him 
nominated  for  the  Vice  Presidency. 

A  bill  making  reductions  was  ere  long  brought  in  by  Mc- 
Duffie  from  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  which  seems 
almost  to  have  been  an  answer  to  a  memorial  from  the  members 
of  the  South  Carolina  Legislature  opposed  to  Nullification. 
Drayton  had  presented  this  memorial  early  in  the  session.  In 
it  the  Unionists  said  they 

.  .  .  Are  exceedingly  aggrieved  by  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  imposing  high  duties  on  foreign  merchandise  for  the  pro- 
tection of  manufactures ;  the  evils  under  which  South  Carolina  is 
suffering  are  obvious  and  alarming;  the  great  depreciation  of 
cotton,  the  chief  staple  of  her  soil  has  reduced  the  profits  to 
which  the  planters  have  long  been  accustomed,  to  such  a  degree, 
that  the  culture,  yielding  no  longer  an  adequate  compensation 
for  their  labor,  is  continued  merely  from  necessity;  at  the  same 
time  her  citizens  are  exorbitantly  taxed  on  all  the  articles  of  for- 
eign growth  or  production  that  enter  into  their  consumption.  If 
other  causes  conspire  to  reduce  the  income  of  her  citizens,  it  is 
the  tariff  alone  which  denies  them  the  right  of  converting  that 
reduced  income  into  such  an  amount  of  the  necessaries  or  con- 
veniences of  life  as  would  certainly  be  at  their  command  under 
the  revenue  system  of  moderate  duties.  These  difficulties, 

57  "  Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  494,  499. 

58Hopkinson   Letters,   in   possession   of   Edward   Hopkinson,   Esq.,   of 
'Philadelphia. 


440  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

though  great,  might  be  tolerated,  if  the  burden  was  equal;  but 
they  are  greatly  aggravated  by  the  consideration  that  the  benefits 
of  the  tariff  are  confined  to  the  manufacturing  States,  and  that 
South  Carolina  feels  with  severity  the  weight  of  the  protecting 
system,  but  receives  no  part  of  the  compensation.  .  .  .  Your 
memorialists,  who  fully  concur  with  their  fellow-citizens  in  their 
opposition  to  the  tariff  are  of  that  party  who  regard  nullification 
as  utterly  unconstitutional.59 

Besides  these  efforts,  J.  A.  Hamilton  writes60  that  Louis 
McLane,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  said  he  would  "  furnish  a 
bill  in  that  spirit  which  ought  to  be  passed,"  and  Baldwin's 
proposal  is  well  known.  Roughly  speaking,  the  latter  reduced 
the  duties  on  all  importations  to  20  per  cent.  It  was  shown 
to  Hayne  and  McDuffie  who  wanted  it  brought  forward  but 
did  not  say  they  would  be  satisfied.61 

All  these  efforts  came  to  nought.  The  protected  interests 
had  the  power  and  could  not  be  forced  to  let  go  their  grasp  on 
the  system  they  had  enacted.  Further  pressure  and  a  more 
vivid  sense  of  the  serious  nature  of  the  impending  conflict  were 
necessary.  The  National  Intelligencer  soon  saw  more  clearly, 
and  wrote  in  the  summer  of  1832  with  special  reference  to  the 
closing  words  of  Calhoun's  letter  to  Governor  Hamilton,62 

Our  readers  East,  West  and  North  may  judge  from  this  lan- 
guage ...  to  what  extent  the  views  of  the  prevailing  party  in 
South  Carolina  go.  But  they  cannot  be  made  to  comprehend  the 
deep  excitement,  and  the  spirit  of  self-devotion,  which  urge  them 
towards  a  practical  application  of  their  doctrine.83 

Calhoun  foresaw  from  early  in  the  session  that  little  would 

59  Congressional  Debates,  Vol.  VIII,  Part  2, 1831-32,  pp.  1619,  1620.    Not 
enough  praise  has  been  awarded  the  Unionists  of   South  Carolina  for 
their  brave  and  high-minded  course.     Agreeing  absolutely  with  the  Nulli- 
fiers  as  to  the  main  issue  of  the  tariff,  they  yet  persistently,  and  despite 
being   a   very  decided  minority,    struggled  to  the   end  against  the  only 
remedy  which  was  proposed,  because  of  their  devotion  to  the  Union.    Acid 
they  suffered  for  their  course  in  almost  every  way  in  which  a  minority 
can  be  made  to  suffer. 

60  "  Reminiscences,"  p.  243. 

ei  J.  Q.  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  482. 

62  Quoted  infra,  p.  446. 

63  Quoted  in  Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XLII,  p.  373. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  441 

be  done  with  the  tariff  and  wrote  more  than  one  correspondent 
to  about  the  following  effect : 

As  far  as  I  can  judge  from  indications,  the  result  will  be  the 
repeal  of  the  taxes  and  the  retention  of  the  bounties ;  that  is  the 
duties  will  be  retained  on  all  articles  the  North  can  manufacture, 
and  be  repealed  on  all  others.  The  burden  will  it  is  true  be 
diminished,  but  the  inequality  be  increased;  it  will  be  taken  off 
the  North  and  left  on  the  South;  off  the  rich  and  left  on  the 
poor.04 

This  was  not  an  unfair  description  of  the  tariff  law  of  that 
session,  which  received  the  President's  approval  on  July  14. 
Its  chief  advantage  to  the  South  was  that  it  did  away  with 
the  minimums.  The  new  statute  was  soon  pronounced  by  re- 
sponsible leaders, —  Clay  of  the  opposition,  as  well  as  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury, —  to  be  a  final  adjustment  of  the  tariff 
and  the  permanent  system  of  revenue,  after  payment  of  the 
debt.65 

Hayne  and  numbers  of  the  South  Carolina  leaders  looked 
upon  the  law  in  one  sense  in  the  same  light,  and  it  was  clearly 
the  means  which  finally  drove  them  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
was  impossible  to  delay  further  the  action  they  had  so  long  been 
threatening.  Eight  of  their  delegation  united  in  a  letter,  bear- 
ing date  the  day  (July  13)  preceding  the  act's  approval  and 
addressed  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  in  which  they  re- 
viewed the  history  of  our  tariff  system  and  added  that  they 
Would  not  pretend  to  suggest  the  remedy.  But  their  opinion 
was  made  clear  enough  at  the  end,  when,  after  expressing  a 
solemn  conviction  "  that  all  hope  of  relief  from  Congress  is 
irrevocably  gone,  they  leave  it  with  you,  the  sovereign  power 
of  the  State,  to'  determine  whether  the  rights  and  liberties 
which  you  received  as  a  precious  inheritance  from  an  illus- 
trious ancestry,  shall  be  tamely  surrendered  without  a  strug- 
gle, or  transmitted  undiminished  to  your  posterity."  66 

64  Letter  of  December  27,  1831,  to  Armistead  Burt,  "  Correspondence," 
p.  307;  see,  also,  pp.  306,  313,  31 7,  319- 

65  Calhoun's  "  Autobiography,"  pp.  41,  42.    Taussig's  "  Tariff  History," 
pp.  103-105,  109,  no. 

66  "The  National   Intelligencer"  of  July  31,   1832,  reprints  this  letter 
"  from  the   Charleston  papers."    It  was   signed  by  Hayne,   Stephen  D. 


442  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

A  few  other  events  of  about  this  period  must  be  mentioned. 
Sporadic  efforts  looking  to  some  other  course  than  Nullifica- 
tion were  still  apparently  making  in  South  Carolina.  Cal- 
houn's  brother-in-law  conceived  a  plan  for  some  application 
to  Congress  which  should  lead  to  a  convention  of  the  States. 
This  was  in  December,  1831,  and  Calhoun  wrote  in  reply  that, 
at  the  proper  stage  of  action,  the  design  might  have  been  the 
best,  but  he  thought  the  period  had  "  passed  to  make  applica- 
tion in  any  form  to  Congress."  Nothing  further  seems  to  have 
been  done  in  the  matter  than  to  write  about  it  to  Calhoun  and 
James  Hamilton,  Jr. 

On  January  25,  1832,  the  nomination  of  Van  Buren  as  Min- 
ister to  England  was  rejected  in  the  Senate  by  Calhoun' s  cast- 
ing vote.  The  Vice-President  seems  to  have  thought  this 
would  end  Van  Buren's  career,  and  the  story  told  by  Benton 67 
is  well  known,  how  he  heard  Calhoun  say  to  a  friend  "  It  will 
kill  him,  sir,  kill  him  dead.  He  will  never  kick,  sir,  never 
kick."  Very  different  was  the  actual  result,  and  in  two  days 
Jackson  was  writing  68  that  the  feeling  was  universal  to  nomi- 
nate Van  Buren  by  acclamation  for  Vice-President.  In  less 
than  two  weeks,  Calhoun  himself  wrote  that  "  the  partisans  of 
Mr.  Van  Buren  will  make  the  most  desperate  effort  to  force  him 
into  the  V.  Presidency  but  judging  from  indications,  I  am  of 
the  impression,  they  will  fail."  69  As  is  well  known,  they  by 
no  means  failed,  and  the  rejection  seems  to  have  been  a  serious 
error  on  the  part  of  Calhoun  and  others,  and  to  show  a  lack 
of  appreciation  of  the  generally  sound  sense  of  the  public, 
which  at  once  felt  that  the  step  was  but  a  move  of  rival  poli- 
ticians. Hayne  disapproved  of  the  action,  thinking  it  would 
help  to  advance  Van  Buren,70  and  it  has  been  seen  that  Poin- 

Miller,  McDuffie,  Warren  R.  Davis,  John  M.  Felder,  John  R,  Griffin,  W.  T. 
Nickolls,  and  Robert  W.  Barnwell.  Drayton,  Blair,  and  Mitchell,  the 
remaining  members,  were  strong  Unionists  and  would,  of  course,  not 
sign,  but  it  is  not  clear  why  the  Unionist  Felder  joined. 

67  "View,"  Vol.  I,  p.  219.     Benton  says   (ibid.,  p.  215)   that,  when  the 
vote  was  declared,  he,  on  the  other  hand,  said  to  a  member  near  him: 
"You  have  broken  a  minister,   and  elected  a  Vice-President" 

68  J.  A.  Hamilton's  "  Reminiscences/^.  237. 

69  "  Correspondence,"  p.  310. 

70  Jervey's  "  Hayne,"  pp.  494-496.    The  unbridled  pen  of  Randolph  wrote 
that  the  part  which  "the  thrice  double  ass,"  Calhoun,  had  played  in  the 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  443 

sett  thought  it  had  a  disorganizing  influence  and  contributed 
to  the  impossibility  of  securing  a  real  reduction  of  the 
tariff. 

Most  great  movements  are  to  some  extent  met  by  satire,  and 
Nullification  was  no  exception.  Early  in  1832  "The  Book  of 
Nullification  "  was  published  anonymously  in  Charleston, —  a 
work  that  contained  some  account  of  the  events  of  the  day  in 
biblical  form  and  language.  In  its  ten  chapters,  Nullification 
was  a  graven  image  which  John  the  Conjuror  had  promised  to 
cast  for  the  people,  telling  them  that  it  should  be  set  up  in 
Convention;  but  in  a  rash  moment  Robert  the  Nullifier 
(Hayne)  exposed  it  to  view  at  an  earlier  date  in  Congress, 
whereupon  Daniel  (Webster)  smote  it  and  hurled  it  to  earth. 
The  idol  was  put  together  again  with  much  difficulty  by  John 
the  Conjuror  (who  was  of  course  Calhoun),  and  hidden  away 
carefully,  with  the  intention  of  bringing  it  out  to  view  in  Con- 
vention. But  Convention  was  lost  in  1830  and  the  satire  was 
published  not  long  before  its  success  two  years  later. 

Of  the  characters,  John  the  King  and  Andrew  the  King  are 
at  once  easily  identified,  while  McDuffie  figures  as  George  the 
Prophet ;  Hayne,  as  Robert  the  Nullifier,  and  James  Hamilton, 
Jr.,  becomes  James  the  Deluded.  Robert  the  Englishman  was 
Robert  J.  Turnbull  or  "Brutus,"  while  Thersites  was,  of 
course,  the  loose-tongued  and  ultra  Thomas  Cooper.  The  sar- 
casm of  the  paper  is  said  to  have  excited  much  attention,  nor 
was  it  long  before  the  author  was  known  to  be  C.  G.  Mem- 
minger,71  then  but  a  modest  young  lawyer,  but  destined  later 
in  life  to  play  a  part  on  the  Southern  side  in  the  tragedy  of 
the  Civil  War. 

Meanwhile,  the  bitter  feeling  against  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment had  grown  rapidly  in  South  Carolina.  ^A  "  Disunion 
Drama"  had  been- per  formed  at  Beaufort,  and  early  in  1831 
a  State  Rights  Ball  was  held  in  Charleston,  at  which  the 

matter  had  made  it  "  as  easy  for  Benedict  Arnold  to  get  the  vote  of  Vir- 
ginia as  for  him"  (Calhoun).  Letter  to  Jackson  quoted  in  Ambler's 
"  Ritchie,"  p.  145,  or  Randolph,  March  16,  1832,  to  Jackson  in  the  Jackson 
papers  in  Library  of  Congress. 

71  "The  Life  and  Times  of  C.  G.  Memminger,"  by  Henry  D.  Capers, 
p.  107,  and  "Appendix,"  pp.  569-599. 


444  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

United  States  flag  formed  no  part  of  the  decoration.72  Disun- 
ion dinners,  too,  are  said  to  have  been  eaten  in  almost  every 
hamlet  in  the  State.73  And  it  must  always  be  remembered 
that,  except  as  to  such  separatist  outbursts  as  these  and  as 
to  the  remedy  proposed  of  Nullification,  the  State  was  prac- 
tically a  unit.  Every  South  Carolinian,  almost  to  a  man,74 
believed  that  his  section  was  grievously  injured  by  the  tariff 
laws.  The  Unionists,fas  has  been  seen^  in  numerous  instances 
emphasized  their  agreement  with  the  opposite  party  as  to 
this  point,  even  while  denouncing  and  bitterly  opposing  Nulli- 
fication/' Doubtless,  the  leaders  had  to  do  this  in  order  to  hold 
their  following  together. 

The  agitation  went  on,  too,  in  other  ways  quite  as  serious 

72  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XLV,  p.  107.     Some  account  of  such  a  ball 
in  1833  may  be  found  in  Jervey's  "  Hayne,"  pp.  357-61. 

73  "  South  Carolina  during  the  Nullification  Struggle,"  by  Gaillard  Hunt, 
in  "Political  Science  Quarterly,"  Vol.  VI  (1891),  pp.  236,  241. 

74  Even  the  strong  Unionist  Petigru  was  of  this  opinion,  in  spite  of  his 
intense  opposition  to  the  Nullifiers,  as  the  earlier  sentences  of  the  follow- 
ing from  one  of  his  speeches  amply  show :  "  That  the  tariff  of  protective 
duties  ought  never  to  have  been  passed;  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  spirit 
of  amity  and  concession  in  which  the  Constitution  was  conceived,  and 
in  which  the  government  ought  to  be  exercised,  I  freely  admit;  that  it 
is  injurious  to  the  South  I  firmly  believe,  but  that  it  is  unconstitutional 
I  wholly  deny;  and  that  it  is  ruinous  in  its  operations,  is  no  more  than 
a  rhetorical  flourish."     Quoted  in  Houston's  "  Nullification,"  p.  101,  from 
Capers's  "  Memminger,"  p.  61.    The  following  incident  shows,  the  same 
unanimity.     In   1831,  two   Charleston  lawyers,  Holmes  and   Mazyck,  im- 
ported goods  and  gave  bond  but  refused  to  pay,  in  order  to  lead  to  suit. 
The  U.  S.  District  Attorney  at  the  time  refused  to  proceed,  however,  on 
the  ground  that  the  tariff  law  was  unconstitutional;  whereupon  Jackson 
removed  him,  and  suit  was  brought  by  his  successor.     On  the  trial,  the 
Court  declined  to  receive  any  evidence  other  than  of  the  execution  of  the 
bond,  so  the  question  of  unconstitutionality  could  not  be  raised.    Judg- 
ment accordingly  went  against  the  defendants,  but  upon  a  levy  on  a  house 
of  one  of  them  and  an  offer  of  it  at  public  sale,  it  was  bought  in  by  a 
State  Rights  man,  and  he  refused  to  comply  with  his  bid  "  on  the  ground 
of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  laws."    When  it  was  then  put  up  again 
on  account  of  and  at  the  risk  of  this  purchaser,  "not  a  single  bid  could 
be  obtained."     It  does  not  appear  that  further  proceedings  were  at  any 
time   taken   against  the   bidder    ("The   National   Intelligencer"   of   No- 
vember   17,    1832,    quoting   the    Charleston    "Mercury";    Hunt's    "South 
Carolina,"  etc.,  ut  supra,  pp.  242,  243 ;  The  Charleston  "  Courier  "  of  July 
30,  1831).     I  made  inquiries  with  the  view  of  tracing  the  history  of  this 
case,  but  found  that  the  records  of  the  U.  S.  District  Court  previous  to 
the  Civil  War  have  been  destroyed  or  removed.    The  judgment- roll  book 
remains,  however,  and  contains  an  entry  of  "Satisfied"  on  the  judgment 
against  Holmes   and  Mazyck,   without   showing  the  date  of   satisfaction. 
The  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this  is  not,  I  think,  very  certain. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  445 

as  the  drama  or  social  gatherings.  On  February  22,  1832, 
a  Convention  of  Delegates  of  the  State  Rights  and  Free  Trade 
Associations  of  South  Carolina  met  in  pursuance  of  notice  at 
the  Circus  in  Charleston.  Several  largely-attended  meetings 
were  held  by  them  and  an  address  issued,  which  distinctly  ad- 
vocated resistance  and  urged  that  their  doctrines  should  be 
taught  by  tract  and  otherwise.75  One  other  event  of  nearly 
the  same  period  must  be  mentioned. 

The  Nullifiers  had  persistently  maintained  that  Jefferson 
was  the  author  of  the  Kentucky  Resolutions,  both  of  1798  and 
1799,  in  which  latter  occur  the  words:  "A  nullification  by 
these  sovereignties  [the  several  States]  of  all  unauthorized  acts, 
done  under  colour  of  that  instrument  [the  constitution],  is 
the  rightful  remedy."  This  assertion  had  been  as  stoutly  de- 
nied on  the  other  side,  for  Jefferson's  name  at  that  date  still 
carried  great  weight.  Among  others,  Ritchie  7G  of  the  Rich- 
mond Enquirer,  whose  paper  was  a  leading  organ  of  the  De- 
mocracy, had  maintained  that  Jefferson  could  not  be  associated 
with  the  doctrine.  Madison,  too,  had  at  about  this  time  ap- 
peared in  the  public  prints  to  deny  that  his  language  in  the 
Virginia  proceedings  furnished  any  precedent  for  the  South 
Carolina  doctrine  of  the  day.77 

The  question  as  to  Madison's  early  views  had  to  be  solved 
from  the  language  he  had  used,  with  the  help  of  his  more  recent 
explanations,  while  every  effort  was  made  by  Ritchie  and 
doubtless  others  to  ferret  out  the  truth  as  to  Jefferson.  Fi- 
nally, Ritchie  was  shown  by  Jefferson's  grandson  a  small  man- 

75  The   Charleston   "  Mercury,"   February  20  and  27,   1832 ;   Houston's 
"  Nullification,"  p.  105. 

76  Ritchie,  as  appears  in  other  parts  of  this  book,  was  altogether  an 
opponent  of  Nullification.    He  wrote  Wm.  C.  Rives  on  December  6,  1832, 
of  Jackson's  then  recent  message  that  "  his  tone  about  South  Carolina 
is   precisely   what   it   should    be."    The   John    Branch   Historical    Papers 
of  Randolph-Macon  College,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  211. 

77  Madison's  chief  letter  on  the  subject  was  to  Edward  Everett  (  Madi- 
son's "Works,"   1851,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  95-107),  as  dated  August,   1830,  and 
was  shortly  published  in  the  "  North  American  Review."    Numerous  other 
like  letters  are  to  be  found  in  his  works  passim,  extending  over  several 
years.    Benton    ("View,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  354-60)    reproduces  parts  of  these 
which  he  says,  had  been  "  recently  put  into  print "  by  the  liberality  of  a 
citizen  of  Washington.    On  the  question  of  Madison's  real  opinions  in 
1789-99,  see  ante,  p.  379,  foot-note. 


446  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C  CALHOUN 

uscript  book  in  which  were  found  in  Jefferson's  own  hand- 
writing two  drafts  (one  very  greatly  altered  and  the  other  a 
fair  copy),  the  latter  o!  which  was  evidently  the  original  of 
the  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1799,  with  the  clause  using  the 
word  "  nullification."  Ritchie  at  once  recognized  that  he  had 
been  in  error  and  published  his  discovery  in  the  Enquirer  of 
March  13,  i832.78  And,  when  we  recall  how  recent  Jefferson 
then  was  and  what  a  weight  his  name  still  carried,  no  one  need 
hesitate  to  believe  Calhoun's  statement79  that  "supported  by 
this  high  and  explicit  authority,  the  State  Rights  party  moved 
forward  with  renovated  energy  and  confidence  in  preparing 
for  the  great  issue." 

During  the  following  summer,  when  the  time  for  the  election 
was  coming  on  apace,  Calhoun  contributed  another  paper  to 
the  discussion,  in  his  letter  of  August  26,  1832,  to  Governor 
Hamilton,80  which  perhaps  presents  the  Nullifiers'  reasons  in 
their  strongest  light.  Parts  are  indeed  of  terrible  force,  but 
it  is  impossible  to  reproduce  here  it  and  the  hundred  other 
instances  in  which  Calhoun's  mind  wrought  out  his  thoughts 
on  this  subject  with  perhaps  too  clear  a  pure  logic.  The  con- 
cluding sentences,  however,  must  be  quoted,  for  they  show  the 
sincerity  of  the  author,  and  show,  too,  with  pathetic  plainness, 
the  mistaken  view  which  he  held  as  to  the  future  of  the  doc- 
trines he  was  advocating.  He  wrote : 

I  believe  the  cause  to  be  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice,  of 
union,  liberty,  and  the  Constitution,  before  which  the  ordinary 
party  struggles  of  the  day  sink  into  perfect  insignificance;  and 
that  it  will  be  so  regarded  by  the  most  distant  posterity,  I  have 
not -the  slightest  doubt. 

This  letter  to  Hamilton  and  the  thousand  other  arguments 

78  These  facts  are  all  set  forth  in  Calhoun's  "  Autobiography,"  pp.  42, 
43;  and  the  discovery  of  Jefferson's  draft  referred  to  in  a  letter  of  Duff 
Green  to  R.  K.  Cralle,  dated  March  12,  1832.     Green  Papers  in  Library 
of  Congress.    Mr.  Warfield    ("The  Kentucky  Resolutions  of   1798,"  pp. 
135,  136,  1551,  152)  objects  that  Jefferson's  draft  is  not  absolutely  identical 
with  the  Resolutions  adopted,  but  why  should  it  be?     Some  alterations 
by  Breckenridge  in  Kentucky  are  highly  likely,  but  the  use  of  the  word 
nullification  in  both,  with  the  other  facts,  seems  proof  enough. 

79  Calhoun's  "  Autobiography,"  p.  43. 
so  "  Works,"  Vol.  VI,  pp.  144-193. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  447 

that  had  been  and  still  were  advanced  had  their  effect  upon 
the  mind  of  a  public  eager  for  any  mode  of  escape  from  the 
ills  they  were  suffering,  and  when  the  election  81  came  to  be 
held  on  October  8,  1832,  the  Nullifiers  had  a  majority  of  about 
6,000  in  a  total  poll  of  but  40,000  82  and  it  was  well  known 
that  they  had  secured  the  necessary  two-thirds  vote  in  the  Leg- 
islature. On  the  day  of  the  election  Calhoun  wrote  to 
Maxcy : 83 

Our  election  takes  place  to-day.  The  State  Rights  party  will 
triumph  by  a  large  majority.  A  convention  of  the  state  will  cer- 
tainly be  called  and  the  act  nullified ;  but  every  movement  will  be 
made  with  the  view  of  preserving  the  Union.  The  end  aimed  at 
will  be  a  General  Convention  of  all  the  States,  in  order  to  adjust 
all  constitutional  differences  and  thus  restore  general  harmony. 

It  seems  84  that  the  popular  vote  in  favor  of  Nullification  was 
about  evenly  divided  between  the  up-country  and  the  lower. 

A  special  session  of  the  Legislature  was  called  by  Governor 
Hamilton  85  to  meet  on  October  22nd,  and  on  the  26th  an  act 
was  passed  by  more  than  the  necessary  two-thirds  majority 
to  call  a  Convention  of  the  people  of  the  State.86  At  the  elec- 
tion held  for  this  purpose,  the  Unionists,  already  badly  de- 
feated in  the  election  for  the  Legislature,  made  but  little  effort, 

81  It  was  said  that  there  was  on  this  occasion  some  violence  and  kid- 
napping of  voters,  etc.,  Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XLIII,  p.  205.    Petigru 
wrote  Legare  that  he  and  his  friends  had  to  arm  themselves,  and  that 
blows  were  #imed  at  him  and  Drayton  and  Poinsett  struck.    Letter  of 
October  29,  1832,  printed  in  Joseph  Blyth  Allston's  "  Life  and  Times  of 
James  L.   Petigru "  in  the   Charleston  "  Sunday  News,"  January  21   to 
June  17,  1900;  see  issue  of  May  27. 

82  Houston's  "  Nullification,"  p.  107,  citing  DeBow's  "  Political  Annals  of 
South  Carolina,"   1845,  P-  39-    The  Charleston  "  Mercury's "  partly  esti- 
mated returns  indicated  a  majority  of  8,000,  in  a  poll  of  about  45,000. 
Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XLIII,  p.  149. 

83  Maxcy-Markoe   Collection  in   Library  of   Congress. 

8*  Wm.  A.  Schaper's  "  Sectionalism  and  Representation  in  South  Caro- 
lina," printed  in  "  Annual  Report  of  American  Historical  Association " 
(1900)  Vol.  I,  pp.  443,  444.  Other  writers  have  thought  differently,  but 
Mr.  Schaper's  conclusion  is  based  on  a  very  careful  investigation. 

85  Petigru  wrote  Legare  on  December  21,  1832:  "The  election  was 
hardly  declared  before  Jack  Irvine  got  upon  a  table  at  the  door  of  the 
State  House  and  read  the  Governor's  proclamation  calling  the  Legislature." 
Allston's  "  Life  "  in  the  Charleston  "  Sunday  News,"  issue  of  May  27,  1832. 

88  "Laws  of  South  Carolina,  1834."  The  news  of  the  passage  of  this 
law  was  followed  by  a  discharge  of  cannon  at  the  doors  of  the  State 
Hall,  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XLIII,  p.  175. 


448  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

and  of  the  162  members  chosen  they  secured  but  26.87  The 
body  so  elected, —  the  famous  Nullification  Convention, —  met 
at  Columbia  on  November  iQth,  1832,  and  at  once  appointed  a 
Select  Committee  of  21  to  consider  and  report  upon  the  matters 
before  them.  The  majority  party  was  evidently  full  of  tri- 
umph and  the  Mercury  of  November  22  contained  a  letter  from 
an  enthusiastic  correspondent,  announcing  that  "the  knell  of 
submission  is  rung." 

The  Select  Committee,  in  its  report,  reviewed  shortly  the  his- 
tory of  the  tariff  laws,  and  of  the  constant  efforts  made  in  the 
State  against  them  since  1820,  and  then  announced  the  "  solemn 
truth  "  that  "  after  more  than  ten  years  patient  endurance  of 
a  system"  believed  by  our  people  to  be  fatal  to  their  pros- 
perity and  plainly  unconstitutional,  a  crisis  had  come  at  which 
it  must  be  determined  whether  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  State 
to  do  anything  to  redress  the  evil.  They  reported  two  Ad- 
dresses,—  one  to  the  People  of  South  Carolina,  written  by 
Turnbull,  and  the  other  to  the  People  of  Massachusetts,  etc., 
etc.,  taken  in  part,  though  not  very  largely,  from  a  draft  pre- 
pared by  Calhoun.  It  was  in  the  main  written  by  McDuffie.88 

The  purpose  of  these  papers  was  of  course  to  explain  and 
justify  the  action  of  the  State.  The  South  Carolina  address 
asserted  that  "  the  idea  of  using  force  on  an  occasion  of  this 
kind  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  genius  and  spirit  of  the 

87  Houston's  "  Nullification/'  pp.  108,  109.    Petigru  also  wrote  to  much 
the  same  effect,  and  said  the  Unionists  did  not  even  support  a  ticket  for 
the  Convention  except  in  districts  where  they  had  the  upper  hand.    Letters 
of  October  29  and  December  21,  1832",  to  Legare,  ut  supra. 

88  P.  M.  Butler  wrote  Hammond  from  the  Convention  Hall  on  Novem- 
ber 22,  1832,  specifying  the  authors  of  the  various  papers  as  stated  in 
the  text  here  and  below,  except  that  he  says  generally  that  the  address 
to   the   other   States   was   written  by   McDuffie    (Hammond    Papers,   in 
Library  of  Congress),  but  parts  of  Calhoun's  draft  ("Works,"  Vol,  VI, 
pp.  193-209)  are  plainly  to  be  found  in  it.    They  were  doubtless  adopted 
by  McDuffie.     See  also  Mr.  Hunt's  "  Calhoun,"  pp.  154-156,  and  Jervey's 
"Hayne,"   p.   219.    The    "Address"   is   not   to   the   " co- States,"   but   to 
Massachusetts,   etc.,   etc.,   by  name.    The  term  "  co-States "  was   doubt- 
less used  afterwards  for  brevity.    Both  "Addresses"  are  to  be   found 
in  the  "  Proceedings  of  the  Conventions  of  the  People  of  South  Caro- 
lina held  in  1832,  1833  and  1852,"  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  1860,  pp.  53-77, 
and  also  in  Cooper's  "  Statutes  at  Large,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  334-54.    It  has  al- 
ready been  said,  (ante,  p.  437)  that  perhaps  this  draft  of  Calhoun  is  one 
of  those  which  R.  B.  Rhett  wrote  in  1854  as  having  been  "suppressed, 
.  .  .  greatly  to  his  [Calhoun's]  mortification  and  indignation." 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  449 

American  people  " ;  while  that  to  the  other  States  ran  in  part : 

Having  formed  this  resolution,  we  'mil  throw  off  this  oppres- 
sion at  every  hazard  [and  in  the  event  of  a  resort  to  military 
force,  we]  will,  forthwith,  provide  for  the  organization  of  a  new 
and  separate  Government. 

Perhaps  more  important  than  these  threats  and  forebodings 
of  trouble,  was  an  offer  of  compromise  (not  contained  in  Cal- 
houn's  draft)  in  the  following  words: 

But  we  are  willing  to  make  a  large  sacrifice  to  preserve  the 
Union;  and  with  a  distinct  declaration  that  it  is  a  concession  on 
our  part,  we  will  consent  that  the  same  rate  of  duty  may  be  im- 
posed upon  the  protected  articles  that  shall  be  imposed  upon  the 
unprotected,  provided  that  no  more  revenue  be  raised  than  is 
necessary  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  Government  for  constitu- 
tional purposes ;  and  provided  also  that  a  duty,  substantially  uni- 
form be  imposed  upon  all  foreign  imports.89 

The  great  document  of  the  Convention,  however,  was  of 
course  the  Ordinance  of  Nullification,  written  by  Harper.  This 
now  so  strange  monument  of  our  past  enacted  that  the  Tariff 
Acts  of  May  19,  1828,  and  of  July  14,  i832,90  "  are  unau- 
thorized by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  violate 
the  true  meaning  thereof,  and  are  null,  void,  and  no  law,  nor 
binding  upon  this  State,  its  officers  or  citizens."  It  was  passed 
on  November  24  by  a  vote  of  136  to  26  and  was  to  go  into 
effect  on  February  i,  1833.  After  then  directing  that  the  Leg- 
islature should  pass  the  laws  necessary  to  carry  the  ordinance 
into  effect,  the  convention  adjourned  to  meet  on  the  call  of 
the  President. 

The  task  left  to  the  Legislature  was  not  an  easy  one,  but  a 
very  complete  system  was  enacted.  A  replevin  was  allowed  for 
goods  held  for  payment  of  duties  and  the  sheriff  might  dis- 
train on  the  personal  property  of  the  offender,  in  case  any  one 
should  refuse  to  deliver  under  the  replevin  or  the  goods  should 
be  later  seized  from  him.  A  habeas  corpus  was  directed  to 

«»"The  Journals  of  the  Conventions,"  etc.,  p.  76. 
80  The  Act  of  1828  was  then  in  force,  and  that  of  1832  was  to  go  into 
effect  on  March  4,  1833. 


450  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

issue  on  behalf  of  any  one  arrested  by  a  federal  court  in  the 
matter,  nor  was  a  sale  under  a  federal  decree  to  vest  title. 
Copies  of  court  records  were  not  to  be  issued,  and  penalties 
were  placed  on  clerks  of  the  courts  violating  this  provision  in 
any  case  where  the  authority  of  the  ordinance  was  drawn  in 
question. 

Heavy  penalties  were  also  imposed  on  such  as  should  resist 
process  under  the  act  or  should  re-seize  goods,  which  had 
been  replevied,  and  on  a  jailer  detaining  any  one  in  jail  for 
disobeying  the  annulled  law,  or  private  persons  so  doing,  or 
leasing  or  permitting  to  be  used  for  such  purpose  any  place, 
house,  or  building.  An  oath  to  obey  the  ordinance  was  re- 
quired to  be  taken  by  all  officers,  various  militia  laws  were 
enacted,  the  purchase  of  ten  thousand  stand  of  arms  and  nec- 
essary accoutrements  authorized,  and  the  Governor  empowered 
to  call  the  men  out  in  case  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
should  try  to  enforce  the  nullified  acts.  A  resolution  in  favor 
of  a  convention  of  the  States  was  also  passed  as  had  been  di- 
rected by  the  Nullifying  Convention.91  Calhoun  was  present 
at  Columbia  during  at  least  part  of  this  session.92 

These  steps  of  the  Nullifiers  did  not  by  any  means  escape 
opposition.  The  Unionists  denounced  them,  and  the  test-oath 
became  a  subject  of  litigation  and  was  in  the  end  adjudged  by 
a  divided  court  to  be  unconstitutional.93  Meetings  were,  more- 
over, held  at  various  times  during  the  agitation  to  oppose  the 
course  of  the  majority.  At  one  of  these,  which  met  in  Charles- 
ton as  early  as  June  of  1832,  the  Unionists  suggested  the  call- 
ing of  a  Southern  Convention.94  Another  meeting  in  oppo- 
sition to  Nullification  had  been  held  at  Chester,  South  Caro- 

91 "  Cooper's  Statutes  at  Large,"  Vol.  I,  pp.  371-376.  "  Laws  of  South 
Carolina,  1832,"  pp.  15-20,  22-27,  28,  29,  42,  51,  52,  58,  65,  66.  Calhotm's 
"Works,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  207. 

92 "  Correspondence,"  p.  322.  His  resignation  of  the  Vice-Presidency, 
on  December  28,  is  dated  at  Columbia.  "  The  National  Intelligencer "  of 
January  7,  1833. 

93  State  vs.  Hunt,  2,  Hill,  p.  I,  decided  in  1834.  Of  the  three  members 
of  the  court,  Johnson  and  O'Neall  agreed  in  the  judgment,  for  different 
reasons,  while  Harper  dissented. 

9*  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XLII,  p.  300.  So  far  as  I  know  this  was 
the  first  suggestion  ever  made  of  a  Southern  Convention.  It  is  curious 
that  the  idea  should  have  originated  with  the  Unionists,  of  all  people. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  451 

lina,  probably  in  the  preceding  March.05  It  seems,  too,  that 
in  December,  1832,  Hamilton  and  Calhoun  were  hung  in  effigy 
at  Spartanburg.96 

The  Unionists  were  once  more  in  session  in  September,  at 
Columbia,  when  the  Legislature  was  about  to  meet  and  issue 
the  call  for  the  Nullification  Convention.  On  this  occasion, 
they  again  took  up  the  idea  of  a  Southern  Convention,  and 
resolved  "with  great  unanimity"  that,  in  case  of  the  con- 
currence of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Georgia,  Tennessee, 
Alabama,  and  Mississippi,  they  "  recommend  to  the  citizens 
of  this  state  to  meet  in  their  several  districts  and  elect  dele- 
gates to  attend  a  general  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  the  said 
states  in  convention,  to  take  into  consideration  the  grievances 
under  which  we  labor,  and  the  means  and  measure  of  redress. 
"  And  they  pledged  themselves  to  abide  by  such  measures  as 
said  convention  should  recommend."  97 

The  address  they  issued  emphasized  once  more  their  oppo- 
sition to  the  tariff,  while  of  the  remedy  proposed  by  the  ma- 
jority it  said:  "Regarded  as  a  peaceful  remedy,  Nullifi- 
cation resolves  itself  into  a  mere  law-suit,  and  may  be  shortly 
dismissed  as  a  feeble,  inefficient  measure.  .  .  .  Regarded  as 
a  forcible  interposition  of  the  sovereign  power  of  the  State, 
the  objects  to  it  lie  far  deeper,"  in  that  it  is  utterly  un- 
constitutional.98 

Again,  after  the  passage  of  the  law  calling  the  convention, 
the  Unionists  held  a  meeting  in  Columbia  on  October  25  and 
issued  an  address  against  the  call  and  recommending  their 

95  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XLII,  p.  92. 

96 Ibid.,  XLIII,  p.  301,  quoting  the  Raleigh  "Register"  of  December  28. 

97  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XLIII,  p.  66.  The  doings  of  this  conven- 
tion were  perhaps  those  which  Calhoun  referred  to  in  a  letter  of  Novem- 
ber 8,  1832,  to  a  relative  as  "  of  an  extraordinary  character,  indeed,  and 
[they]  certainly  indicate  a  factious  sperit,  as  well  as  a  very  selfish  one. 
They  have  been  well  answered  by  our  Committee."  The  proposal  of  a 
Southern  Convention  was  evidently  to  some  extent  a  move  for  position 
on  the  political  chess-board.  Petigru  wrote  Legare  on  October  29,  1832, 
"  We  had  our  Union  Convention  in  September,  and  put  forth  our  South- 
ern Convention  prospectus,  but  all  would  not  do.  Nothing  could 
supplant  nullification  but  something  that  would  go  ahead  of  it." 
Allston's  "Life,"  ut  supra,  in  Charleston  "Sunday  News"  of  May  27, 
1900. 

•s  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XLIII,  pp.  87-89. 


452  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

party  to  send  delegates  to  the  convention : "  and  finally  after 
the  passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  Nullification  they  met  in 
Columbia  on  December  10,  according  to  adjournment.  The 
number  of  delegates  present  was  estimated  at  I5O,100  and  reso- 
lutions were  received  from  the  people  of  Greenville,  Spartan- 
burg,  Pendleton,  Chester,  and  apparently  other  districts.  A 
long  "  solemn  protest "  against  Nullification  was  issued,  and 
Randell  Hunt  offered  resolutions  to  the  effect  that  they  ac- 
knowledged no  allegiance  to  any  government  but  that  of  the 
United  States,  that  the  general  committee  be  directed  to  in- 
quire "  whether  it  is  not  expedient  to  give  a  military  organiza- 
tion to  the  Union  Party  throughout  the  State,"  and  whether  it 
will  be  necessary  to  call  in  the  assistance  of  the  General  Gov- 
ernment.101 

These  resolutions  were  referred  with  only  one  dissenting 
vote,  but  it  seems  that  no  report  was  made  on  them.  At  a 
later  date  Hunt  said  that  they  had  been  substantially  approved 
"  by  the  citizens  of  Greenville,  Spartanburg  and  other  portions 
of  our  own  State,"  as  well  as  outside  the  State.102 

The  Legislature  of  South  Carolina  had  had  one  other  ques- 
tion to  meet  at  its  session  in  the  late  fall  of  1832.  The  time 
had  then  arrived  when,  if  ever,  a  position  must  be  taken  as  to 
the  presidency.  Little  interest  had  been  shown  in  it  in  the 
State,  and  Hamilton  had  written  that  "  they  would  take  no  part 
in  the  presidential  election."  103  Calhoun,  too,  wrote  Cralle 

99  Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  XLIII,  p.  175.    It  has  already  been  said  that, 
in  the  actual  election,  little  effort  was,  however,  made  by  the  Unionists. 

100  Petigru  wrote :  "  We  mustered  very  strong,"  Letter  to  Legare  dated 
December  21,  1832:  Allston's  "Life,"  in  "  Sunday  News"  of  May  27,  1900. 

101  Niles's  "Register,"  Vol.  XLIII,  pp.  279,  291-93;  "The  National  In- 
telligencer" of  November  17  and  22,  and  December  25,  1832.    The  Union- 
ists seem  not  to  have  been  united  on  the  question  of  opposing  by  arms 
the  course  of  the  controlling  party  in  the  State.    James  S.  Rhett  said 
in  a  public  speech  in  1844  that,  when  nullification  was  about  to  be  en- 
forced, he  was  sent  by  the  Union  party  to  Jackson  on  a  secret  mission 
and  was  directed  to  tell  him  that,  "  whilst  we  were  anxious  to  do  our 
duty  as  good  citizens  of  the  Union,  no  union  man  would  commit  treason 
against  his  State."     Niles's  "  Register,"  Vol.  LXVII,  pp.  43,  44. 

i°2  Randell  Hunt's  Address  of  January  21  to  the  Union  Party  of  South 
Carolina,  Pamphlet  in  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  The  Ad- 
dress bears  date  January  21,  but  no  year  is  given.  It  was  evidently 
first  printed  in  some  newspaper  and  internal  evidence  shows  that  it  was 
of  1833- 

103  Letter  to  Hammond  of  June  n,  1832,  quoted  ante  pp.  429,  430. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  453 

in  May,—  doubtless  with  a  view  to  the  course  to  be  followed 
by  Cralle's  Richmond  newspaper: 

.  .  .  The  question  of  the  V.  Presy  ought  to  be  entered  into  by 
you  just  to  the  extent,  and  no  farther,  than  may  be  necessary  to 
strengthen  the  state  rights  doctrine  in  your  State.  .  .  .  Let  us 
place  the  Presidential  question  under  our  foot ;  and  make  it  the 
criterion  of  patriotism  not  to  take  office  under  the  Gen1  Gov1  till 
the  Constitution  be  restored,  and  the  South  liberated  from  her 
burdens.104 

In  South  Carolina  at  that  date,  the  Legislature  always  chose 
the  Presidential  electors,  but  it  was  manifestly  not  to  be  ex- 
pected of  the  State  to  cast  her  vote  for  Jackson,  who  was  hotly 
denouncing  her  course  and  threatening  co-ercion,  nor  was  the 
natural  alternative  easier,  for  Clay  typified  the  so-called  Ameri- 
can System,  which  was  anathema  to  them.  The  position  they 
had  taken  left  apparently  no  choice  but  that,  which  usually 
seems  a  lame  and  impotent  conclusion,  of  throwing  their  vote 
away.  Accordingly,  resolutions  were  passed  by  the  Legisla- 
ture on  December  3,  to  the  effect  that  it  was  inexpedient  for 
South  Carolina  to  vote  for  either  one  of  the  candidates  for 
President  or  Vice-President  and  that  therefore  "  in  testimony 
of  our  high  esteem  and  consideration  for  the  patriotic  de- 
votion of  John  Floyd  of  Virginia  and  Henry  Lee  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  the  principles  of  State  Rights,  and  the  great  cause 
of  Free  Trade,  we  will  give  to  them  the  vote  of  this  State 
for  President  and  Vice-President."  105 

Congress  came  together  in  regular  session  on  December  3, 
1832,  at  a  time  when  Nullification  had  been  enacted  in  South 
Carolina  and  most  of  the  events  above  narrated  had  taken 
place.  The  whole  country  was  in  a  condition  of  great  excite- 
ment and  anxiety,  and  the  arrest  of  Calhoun  was  expected 
upon  his  arrival  in  Washington  early  in  January  of  1833. 
People  all  felt  that  we  were  face  to  face  with  a  most  serious 

104  "  Correspondence,"  pp.  320,  321.    The  candidates  of  the  leading  par- 
ties for  Vice-President  were  Van  Buren  and  John  Sergeant. 

105  The  Charleston  "  Mercury  "  of  December  6,  1832.    John  Floyd,  long 
a  State  Rights  Democrat,  was  then  Governor  of  Virginia.    He  had  strongly 
criticized  Jackson's  Proclamation.    Henry  Lee  of  Massachusetts  had  writ- 
ten in  support  of  free  trade. 


454  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

emergency  growing  out  of  the  tariff.  Jackson,  it  has  been  seen, 
had  advocated  reductions  in  his  more  recent  utterances  and 
his  message  at  the  opening  of  this  session  again  contained 
the  same  recommendation,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  Act  of 
1832  had  been  widely  and  authoritatively  proclaimed  to  be  our 
definitive  Tariff. 

Indeed,  the  Message  went  much  further,  for,  omitting  all  ref- 
erence to  distribution,  it  recommended  economy  in  expendi- 
tures and  then  added  that  the  approaching  extinction  of  the 
public  debt 

.  .  .  affords  the  means  of  further  provision  for  all  the  objects 
of  general  welfare  and  public  defence  which  the  constitution 
authorizes,  and  presents  the  occasion  for  such  further  reduction 
in  the  revenue  as  may  not  be  required  for  them.  From  the  Re- 
port of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  it  will  be  seen  that  after 
the  present  year,  such  a  reduction  may  be  made  to  a  considerable 
extent.  [Long  and  patient  reflection  had  strengthened  the  opin- 
ions which  the  President  had  theretofore  expressed  to  Congress 
on  this  subject  and  he  then  goes  on  that  the  soundest  maxims  of 
public  policy  and  our  principles  recommend]  a  proper  adaptation 
of  the  revenue  to  the  expenditures,  and  they  also  require  that  the 
expenditure  shall  be  limited  to  what,  by  an  economical  adminis- 
tration, shall  be  consistent  with  the  simplicity  of  the  Government 
and  necessary  to  an  efficient  public  service.  ...  I  recommend 
that  it  [the  legislative  protection]  be  gradually  diminished  and 
that,  as  far  as  may  be  consistent  with  these  objects  [to  counteract 
foreign  regulations  and  secure  a  supply  of  articles  essential  to 
national  independence  and  safety  in  time  of  war],  the  whole 
scheme  of  duties  be  reduced  to  the  revenue  standard  as  soon  as  a 
just  regard  to  the  faith  of  the  government  and  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  large  capital  invested  in  establishments  of  domestic 
industry,  will  permit. 

This  language  was  certainly  highly  conciliatory  and  presum- 
ably to  no  little  extent  intended  by  Jackson  as  a  carrying  out 
of  his  indications  to  the  Unionists.  It  may  probably  also  be 
accepted  as  proof  that  he  was  sincere  in  his  desire  for  real  re- 
ductions and  far  from  satisfied  with  the  Act  of  1832.  John 
Quincy  Adams  wrote  106  however,  that  the  message  threw  away 

we  « Memoirs,"  Vol.  VIII,  p.  503. 


THE  DRAMA  OF  NULLIFICATION  455 

all  neutrality  "  and  surrenders  the  whole  Union  to  the  nullifiers 
of  the  South  and  the  land-robbers  of  the  West."  With  these 
"  land-robbers  "  we  are  not  here  concerned,  but  the  historian 
may  perhaps  find  a  high  patriotism  in  Jackson's  course  and  will 
at  least  conclude  that  the  carping  diarist  would  not  have  shown 
nearly  as  firm  a  front  under  the  appalling  difficulties  of  the  day 
as  did  Jackson.  He  certainly  had  not  done  so  in  the  contest  of 
his  time  with  Georgia. 

A  few  days  after  the  meeting  of  Congress,  Jackson  issued 
his  famous  Proclamation  of  December  10,  i832,107  against  the 
Nullifiers,  which  was  in  turn  answered  by  Hayne,  the  new 
Governor  of  South  Carolina,  on  December  2Oth,  in  pursuance 
of  the   request  of  the   Legislature.108     Hayne  having  beerfj 
elected  to  the  Governorship  on  December  loth,109  had  resigned  j 
the  Senatorship,110  and  on  the  I2th  of  the  same  month)(Cal-! 
houn  was  elected  to  the  U.  S.  Senate  to  fill  the  unexpired  term  1 
of  Hayne.     He  then  in  turn  resigned  the  Vice-Presidency  on'* 
December  28.111     His  election  had  been  foreseen  by  at  least  one 
politician  during  the  preceding  summer,112  and  of  course  the 
exchange  was  made  in  pursuance  of  an  arrangement  among 

107  The  proclamation  was  reviewed  at  great  length  by  "A  Virginian" 
(L.  W.  Tazewell),  in  thirteen  numbers,  originally  printed  in  the  "Nor- 
folk and  Portsmouth  Herald."  The  review  was  later  published  in  pam- 
phlet form  and  contains  112  pages.  A  copy  is  preserved  in  the  Library  of 
the  University  of  South  Carolina. 

108 "Laws  of  South  Carolina,"  1832,  p.  37. 

109  Charleston  "Mercury"  of  November  30,  and  December  13,  1832. 
He  was  elected  by  the  Legislature  by  123  votes  to  26  blank. 

110 Mr.  Hunt  ("Life  of  Calhoun,"  pp.  159,  160)  writes  that  Hayne  by 
no  means  wanted  to  give  up  the  senatorship.    See  also  Jervey's  "  Hayne, 
p.  322. 

111 "  Life  of  Calhoun,"  by  Gaillard  Hunt,  pp.  159,  160.  The  exact  form 
of  the  resignation  is  given  by  Mr.  Hunt.  It  was  addressed  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State,  and  was  sent  by  that  officer  on  January  4,  1833,  with  a 
letter  of  his  own,  to  the  President  of  the  Senate,  in  pursuance  of  the 
directions  of  Jackson.  Nothing  further  was  then  done.  Hugh  L.  White 
had  already  on  the  opening  day  of  the  session  (December  3rd)  been 
elected  President  Pro  tern.,  "the  Vice-President  of  the  United  States 
being  absent,"  and  he  remained  in  the  office  until  March  4,  1833.  Journal 
of  the  Senate ;  and  see  "  The  National  Intelligencer  "  for  January  7,  1833. 

112  Duff  Green  wrote  to  Cralle  on  July  28:  "Mr.  Calhoun  will  come 
into  the  Senate  and  be  at  the  head  of  that  party,  who  rallies  for  the 
Constitution  and  Liberty.  Of  this,  however,  say  nothing.  I  see  this 
must  be  the  result.  His  master  spirit  will  place  him  there."  "  Calhoun 
as  seen  by  his  Friends,"  in  "  Publications  of  Southern  History  Associa- 
tion," Vol.  VII,  pp.  276,  277. 


456  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  leaders.  It  may  be  safely  surmised  that  the  object  in  view 
was  to  have  Calhoun  present  the  South  Carolina  views  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate.  He  was  now  known  far  and  wide  as  thoir 
great  defender. 


END   OF   VOL.    I 


4.56  LIFE  OF  JOHN  C.  CALHOUN 

the  leaders.  It  may  be  safely  surmised  that  the  object  in  view 
was  to  have  Calhoun  present  the  South  Carolina  views  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate.  He  was  now  known  far  and  wide  as 
great  defender.  ^S 


END   OF   VOL.   I 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


LD  21A-60m-10,'65 
(F7763slO)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LD  21A-50m-4,'6l 
(A9562slO)476B 


•rsity  of  California 
Berkeley 


